Brandel Chamblee quote from May 2012 Golf Digest, plus commentary by Brian Manzella

[Brian Manzella]

Brandel Chamblee was a really good player on the PGA Tour and is a talented announcer and commentator. In this month's Golf Digest there was a interview published as a series of quotes, below is one of those quotes that I felt compelled to respond to. In my opinion, Brandel's feelings on this subject are based on just not having all the facts, or seeing—up close and personal—what can be done with science and a $30,000 ball and club measurement device..

Here is the quote:
<wbr>
Brandel Chamblee: "The other day someone was telling me about "the new laws of ball flight," which insinuated that the laws of physics have changed. The findings were supported, he said, by the output of one of those 30,000 dollar launch monitors. I listened, and it turns out these "new laws" were semantics for things we already knew. The organic approach to teaching will always be far superior, in my view. No teacher is more in demand than Butch Harmon, and he doesn't use one of those God forsaken things. Butch knows that approach isn't expeditious, it isn't economical, and it isn't right."

 

[Brian Manzella]

Brandel Chamblee: "The other day someone was telling me about "the new laws of ball flight," which insinuated that the laws of physics have changed."

Brian Manzella: "Brandel, Nobody who has promoted and explained the heretofore unknown phenomenon of the 'resultant path,' the fact that clubhead path is 3D, not 2D like previously incorrectly explained, has said that the law of the physics have changed. Myself, and several other working teaching professionals who have promoted the ideas discovered by Manhattan Project scientist Theodore Jorgensen, and uncovered by TrackMan inventor Fredrik Tuxen—The D-Plane—have ever done anything but try to explain what really causes the ball to fly from point A to point B. The scientific truths that govern ball-flight just weren't known by more than a couple of people on earth even just a few years ago."​

Brandel Chamblee: "The findings were supported, he said, by the output of one of those 30,000 dollar launch monitors. I listened, and it turns out these "new laws" were semantics for things we already knew."

Brian Manzella: "As far as knowing what the resultant path, the clubface normal, and how they formed the two vectors of the D-Plane was, or how a straight ball was actually created, or exactly what ball-flight would be created on any given sets of parameters—sorry, nobody knew that 10 years ago. In fact, nobody was even close by today's standards."​

Brandel Chamblee: "The organic approach to teaching will always be far superior, in my view."

Brian Manzella: "While I respect your opinion, here is mine: I have taught golf for 30 years. Full-time. I have studied every scientific piece of information about the golf swing and ball-flight I could get my hands on. I have a dozen scientists on speed dial. But I consider myself an artistic instructor. I don't use complicated terms to students and I can explain scientific concepts to the masses pretty darn well. You should go to Golf.com, put 'manzella' in the search box, and watch a couple of my videos. There is no substitute for having FACTUAL knowledge as your teaching base. None."​

Brandel Chamblee: "No teacher is more in demand than Butch Harmon, and he doesn't use one of those God forsaken things. Butch knows that approach isn't expeditious, it isn't economical, and it isn't right."

Brian Manzella: "Butch is a great instructor. He would be a better instructor if he had a TrackMan running in his lessons, even if he didn't tell the student anything about it. If you think, he or anyone else, can stand behind a student, and accurately predict speed, contact point, path, clubface, angle of attack, and dynamic loft—the elements that create ball flight—of a PGA Tour quality player, you are kidding yourself. Guessing takes time, and that is not expeditious.​

Brandel, I love the fact that you are opinionated, I'm pretty opinionated myself. But you are are wrong as you can be on this one. I would welcome giving you a demonstration—anytime—of someone that knows how to use science and one of those $30,000 machine with art, creativity, common sense, effective communication, and good old fashioned know how."
​

 

[ZAP]

Very interesting.

 

[Brian Manzella]

Folks, lets show some class in response to this one, folks from all over will read this.

 

[duckjr78]

I thought of this website when I read that quote yesterday. Brandell has a right to his opinion, but I'm glad you responded. If the people with a voice really want golfers as a whole to improve, they really need to open their eyes.

Or maybe the person that explained the correct ball flight laws to Brandell just didn't do it very well..............

 

[odpeus]

The sad part is that $30k is probably that much for Butch and Brande-together they could most like pull it off.

Of course I could be wrong, as many times before.

Sorry, I just have to say it - "the good old boys club" is good for a lot of things, but do not necessarily advancing science and helping the rest of us.

 

[DCgolf]

I respect any player who played the PGA Tour. At any level. And Brandel is a serious student of the game. The history, rules, courses. I enjoy that part of his commentary immensely. I respectfully disagree with his assessment of TRACKMAN. But implicit in those remarks, is a broader personal bias he has against technology in general; he thinks that too many teachers are hiding behind video, TRACKMAN etc and missing the "organic" link to fixing golf swings. On this larger point I might agree. I witnessed a TRACKMAN lesson recently where the instructor pretty much called out numbers during the whole time. At some point we still have to step in there, move the student around, work on intangibles like tempo, grip pressure etc. With due respect to Brandel, perhaps this is what he meant. But I still strongly disagree.

 

[Brian Manzella]

I respect any player who played the PGA Tour. At any level. And Brandel is a serious student of the game. The history, rules, courses. I enjoy that part of his commentary immensely. I respectfully disagree with his assessment of TRACKMAN. But implicit in those remarks, is a broader personal bias he has against technology in general; he thinks that too many teachers are hiding behind video, TRACKMAN etc and missing the "organic" link to fixing golf swings. On this larger point I might agree. I witnessed a TRACKMAN lesson recently where the instructor pretty much called out numbers during the whole time. At some point we still have to step in there, move the student around, work on intangibles like tempo, grip pressure etc. With due respect to Brandel, perhaps this is what he meant. But I still strongly disagree.

No doubt that's what he meant.

He meant "The way I've seen those launch monitors used...."

I still had to school him a bit though....

 

[Erik_K]

I respect any player who played the PGA Tour. At any level. And Brandel is a serious student of the game. The history, rules, courses. I enjoy that part of his commentary immensely. I respectfully disagree with his assessment of TRACKMAN. But implicit in those remarks, is a broader personal bias he has against technology in general; he thinks that too many teachers are hiding behind video, TRACKMAN etc and missing the "organic" link to fixing golf swings. On this larger point I might agree. I witnessed a TRACKMAN lesson recently where the instructor pretty much called out numbers during the whole time. At some point we still have to step in there, move the student around, work on intangibles like tempo, grip pressure etc. With due respect to Brandel, perhaps this is what he meant. But I still strongly disagree.

Great post, DCgolf. Let's not try to take too many things out of context. Trackman has, and will continue, to unlock some science behind the swing and impact. The real key here is knowing where and how to use Trackman in lessons. As Brian already pointed out, the minute differences [especially in Tour caliber] swings that may mean the difference between making a cut, holding a critical green, or shaping a shot in a desired direction are made apparent with Trackman. Whereas video may provide inconclusive evidence as to what the source of the problem is. On the other end of the spectrum, the 30 handicapper with an open face and poor pivot probably doesn't need to know that he/she is swinging 10 degrees outside in with a 30k machine.

Chamblee is absolutely right that video (or any technology for that matter) is a substitute for traditional hands on instruction. However, that doesn't mean that "golf by numbers" can't be used to augment the instructor's methods or ideas. One might say that Trackman is merely another "tool in the tool box."

But anyone can buy the tools. It takes a real artist to use them correctly.

Erik

 

[Brian Manzella]

It should be pointed out, that you can give a crappy, one-method-fits-all, poor communication lesson with no TrackMan, no video, no science, and no clue.

 

[mgranato]

Internet golf is easy. It's easy to be an expert without any real talent or know how. It's easy to buy a domain, and post some theories. It's easy to get a couple of followers... people are that desperate to try anything "new" hoping to improve.

However, it's been my experience, from talking to and listening to Tour players, that these internet experts don't carry much weight with real players. Guys who've won and regularly competed on the toughest tour in the world don't enjoy suffering fools when they're told what they can do is wrong. Especially from someone who would get 9 a side.

Brandel's comments strike me as the reaction of someone who's been told he's been doing it wrong. I didn't know the correct ball flight laws, the D-plane, AoA, VSP, etc until I knew them, which hasn't been that long ago. But what separates someone like me from someone like Brandel is that I wasn't a tour caliber player absolutely sure how to make a golf ball do what I wanted it to. Guys in my boat are far more ready to accept something new (and more accurate) because we don't have the burden of world class talent to supplement our learning.

If Brandel was introduced to these concepts and equipment by a true expert with 30 plus years of experience and also understands how to deal with real players, I bet his opinions would reside in a different place. Hopefully he will get the right information in the right way. Either way, the train is leaving the station and it's up to each of us to get on board, or risk being left behind with the guys holding video cameras, lag, and a keyboards.

 

[ms1170]

What I find amazing is that Brandel and Bill Kratzert seem to have the same ideas about teaching the golf swing that they had in 1985. I could understand this if they were both still playing great or out of the game completely. Keeping up with new techniques and technology is expected in almost every profession, and you would think they would just be naturally curious about these things. Imagine going to a dentist that had the same tools and techniques for 30 years. No thanks.

 

[Brian Manzella]

I think they just haven't seen it use the way I use it.

(there are others who use it like I do)

 

[bertsmith]

IIRC, Mr. Chamblee won one tour event. Even if it was a rain shortened event, which I think it was, that is an accomplishment. However, I have never seen him hit a golf ball in recent years, even when he hosted one of those "playing lessons from the pros" things on the Golf Channel. Maybe he would benefit from the Manzella treatment.

 

[Jim Kobylinski]

It should be pointed out, that you can give a crappy, one-method-fits-all, poor communication lesson with no TrackMan, no video, no science, and no clue.

And still find some success; which is the other problem with golf and one of the most important things i remember you ever telling me which was along the lines, "Jimmy, almost anything you tell a talented player to do they'll figure out how to adapt to it and make it work. Do that with a weekend handicapper and you'll never hear from that guy again."

 

[gmbtempe]

I respect any player who played the PGA Tour. At any level. And Brandel is a serious student of the game. The history, rules, courses. I enjoy that part of his commentary immensely. I respectfully disagree with his assessment of TRACKMAN. But implicit in those remarks, is a broader personal bias he has against technology in general; he thinks that too many teachers are hiding behind video, TRACKMAN etc and missing the "organic" link to fixing golf swings. On this larger point I might agree. I witnessed a TRACKMAN lesson recently where the instructor pretty much called out numbers during the whole time. At some point we still have to step in there, move the student around, work on intangibles like tempo, grip pressure etc. With due respect to Brandel, perhaps this is what he meant. But I still strongly disagree.

I think I might be moving closer to your line of thinking. To much attention is paid to where weight is at certain positions in the swing, certain planes the club is on, etc etc but at the same time video and stuff like Trackman can show a student that feel is not real, and provide really proof that stuff like an open club face or really poor hip turn is taking place in the swing.