Do Technical Explanations have a place for "non-teachers"?

[Jim Kobylinski]

FROM BRIAN MANZELLA:

In this thread, I explained how "JeffMann's" assumptions about straightaway ball flight were tragically flawed.

I had to "go technical" with him, becuase, well, he asked me to.

The following is comments about whether or not information like this is "too technical" for the non-teacher...

I will comment on all the following comments soon, later in this thread.






FROM Jim Kobylinski:

No offense but ALL of you are making this too complicated. Please go to your range and perform this experiment:

1) Grab your favorite wedge and line up a 30-40 yard pitch.
2) Aim right at the flag with a square stance and a square face and swing just a HAIR inside out out. Where does ball go?
3) Same as 2 above but hit this ball with a steeper angle of attack. Where does ball go?
4) Now aim left, swing left and come down just as steep as 3 above, where does ball go?

If you can't understand the relationship of how left you have to swing to neutral out the downward hit i'm not sure what else to do. I just showed this to a student today and it made perfect sense to him when we were done. Also opened his eyes about how to counter act the UP on the driver

 

[Brian Manzella]

No offense but ALL of you are making this too complicated.

No Jimmy, we are trying to be as EXACT as possible, because folks are using faux-science and we are countering it with REAL science.

 

[Zztop]

No Jimmy, we are trying to be as EXACT as possible, because folks are using faux-science and we are countering it with REAL science.

I think what jim meant is that not every person that plays golf can understand or may not want to be told all the data ,and to find a way to show them how to do what the data shows is the instructors job, and a good instructor will find a way to do the job, whatever that maybe. Jim can speak for himself, if i'm out of line, sorry, that's just what i read into his comment.

 

[ausfreddy]

Golf used to be so simple - look at the target and let the brain work out the details of how to get the ball there.

 

[ssssc]

No offense but ALL of you are making this too complicated. Please go to your range and perform this experiment:

1) Grab your favorite wedge and line up a 30-40 yard pitch.
2) Aim right at the flag with a square stance and a square face and swing just a HAIR inside out out. Where does ball go?
3) Same as 2 above but hit this ball with a steeper angle of attack. Where does ball go?
4) Now aim left, swing left and come down just as steep as 3 above, where does ball go?

If you can't understand the relationship of how left you have to swing to neutral out the downward hit i'm not sure what else to do. I just showed this to a student today and it made perfect sense to him when we were done. Also opened his eyes about how to counter act the UP on the driver

morning jim ,

thanks for the above post ... i am off to the range to work on this stuff ...

Duane

 

[softconsult]

I read this thread and was reminded of a statement that one of my regional managers used to make directed to my overly analytical self. The statement was something like, "Interesting. Now that you have all this data, tell me what managerial action you are going to take that you couldn't have taken before you knew every last detail."

While not an exact analogy, and while admitting to a fascination with all the technical data, I am with Jim on this one. Without the assistance of Trackman, or a knowledgeable teacher, how in the world is a person going to go to the range and apply this knowledge. You may think they are hitting more down or move or less this or that, but how do you really know.

Now this is just my experience. I hit balls 3 or 4 times a week and play twice a week. I work on 7 iron down. I experiment with playing shots, fade it in, draw it in, hit it high, hit it less high etc. etc. I can't imagine how I would experiment with 2 degrees more down, or hitting up with the Driver, because how would I know what I actually did. I also think that even if you could do hit exactly the optimum numbers, what happens when you have a tilted lie. You have to adjust. To me this means adjust setup, and apply some feel to the shot.

Now I can relate to what Jim described. Do this, then that, then something else and observe the differences to reach a conclusion.

I do, however, think that the D-Plane ball flight laws are very interesting. To me they simply mean that the face angle has more influence than the path.

Just my 2 cents worth.

 

[curtisj76]

Golf used to be so simple - look at the target and let the brain work out the details of how to get the ball there.

I agree. After reading some posts the other day I set off to the course. I hit a great drive and had 100 to the flag. Before I hit I thought, "Brian wants me to aim a little left", so I did. End result = pin high 8 yards LEFT of the flag. Dang!! On my second 9 I had the exact same drive. Before I hit I thought, "Brian wanted me to aim left last time but it ended left." This time I took dead aim at it and came 2 inches from my first eagle ever. Dang!!

I know I don't know all the "techno" stuff that goes on around here. All I know is that I take dead aim at most of my shots and the other day I was on fire.

 

[Jared Willerson]

I agree. After reading some posts the other day I set off to the course. I hit a great drive and had 100 to the flag. Before I hit I thought, "Brian wants me to aim a little left", so I did. End result = pin high 8 yards LEFT of the flag. Dang!! On my second 9 I had the exact same drive. Before I hit I thought, "Brian wanted me to aim left last time but it ended left." This time I took dead aim at it and came 2 inches from my first eagle ever. Dang!!

I know I don't know all the "techno" stuff that goes on around here. All I know is that I take dead aim at most of my shots and the other day I was on fire.

Taking dead aim "for you" may already be left enough. Most people already have a left or right aim bias.....just something to consider

 

[alexlimco]

Taking dead aim "for you" may already be left enough. Most people already have a left or right aim bias.....just something to consider

I am begging to differ here. What you are essentially placing here is that what BM or the rest of those 'science guys' here are infallible. Look, imagine this, a guy or a hacker like me is out on the course. Is that person likely to think about degrees, down hit etc or hitting it to the pin?

That put across, every golfer has a different swing compared to his neighbour. So how can we put across some instructions that will hep a golfer without 'BURYING THE POOR GUY' in details?

I came on to this forum looking for that and have progressed somewhat. Somehow I noticed that it has since went from good to almost good. Sorry for speaking my mind but being too analytical is not good for the game and the player.

Regards.

 

[Steve Greffen]

Taking dead aim "for you" may already be left enough. Most people already have a left or right aim bias.....just something to consider

Exactly, dead aim is probably not the dead aim Curtis thinks it is, but if it is working, continue doing what you are doing.

As for Softconsult, I believe what Brian was doing was proving what scientifically happens or needs to happen in the golf swing to have a correct outcome, not preaching how to go about taking that scientific information to the range.

I have been working with some people, especially with the driver, showing them the path to face relationship and it has been an eye opener for some. One guy was funny when I was going to show him how to set up for a draw, he said "oh I don't want to get all fancy with that I just set up for a straight shot! When I showed him that his straight ball set up would hook the ball left of his target (by demonstrating hitting shots) he took notice.

Steve

 

[curtisj76]

"Dead aim" for me is looking at the target, finding an intermediate target, and then aligning my clubface to that. Not sure if that helps.

 

[fronesis]

For everyone voicing some (often very legitimate) complaints about the technical details of this thread, I have two responses.

First, look at Brian's response to the ball position thread: it's VERY simple and very direct in saying -
A. You may want to aim a bit right for the driver and perhaps even a fairway wood.
B. You may want to aim a bit left for short irons.

You can take JUST that away, go to the course, and be in good shape.

Second, and more important, the great thing about Brian's forum is that it operates on MULTIPLE levels.
1. The brand new golfer who wants to learn how to grip it and pivot.
2. The guy shooting in the 90s who wants to some day break 80.
3. The scratch golfer thinking about competing seriously.

But that's not all! Brian is also communicating with a lot of other golf instructors, and with those who ARE interested in the technical details of the science of the golf swing. So he's not just teaching golfers, he's teaching teachers.

It's simply a fact that "teaching teachers" and having "scientific debates" will have to go on in a slightly different language than teaching students.

Personally, I can't quite follow all the trackman details, but I WOULD NOT want these threads to stop.

I do think there has been an interesting drift in the forum. If you go back and read threads from 18 months ago there were far more discussions about the grip and the pivot. Now you have newer golfers working on the NHA pattern, trying to optimize themselves on Trackman, etc. It seems to me that a lot of people could benefit from working on COFF, Building Blocks, and NSA and worry about the other stuff when the handicap gets real low.

 

[alexlimco]

For everyone voicing some (often very legitimate) complaints about the technical details of this thread, I have two responses.

First, look at Brian's response to the ball position thread: it's VERY simple and very direct in saying -
A. You may want to aim a bit right for the driver and perhaps even a fairway wood.
B. You may want to aim a bit left for short irons.

You can take JUST that away, go to the course, and be in good shape.

Second, and more important, the great thing about Brian's forum is that it operates on MULTIPLE levels.
1. The brand new golfer who wants to learn how to grip it and pivot.
2. The guy shooting in the 90s who wants to some day break 80.
3. The scratch golfer thinking about competing seriously.

But that's not all! Brian is also communicating with a lot of other golf instructors, and with those who ARE interested in the technical details of the science of the golf swing. So he's not just teaching golfers, he's teaching teachers.

It's simply a fact that "teaching teachers" and having "scientific debates" will have to go on in a slightly different language than teaching students.

Personally, I can't quite follow all the trackman details, but I WOULD NOT want these threads to stop.

I do think there has been an interesting drift in the forum. If you go back and read threads from 18 months ago there were far more discussions about the grip and the pivot. Now you have newer golfers working on the NHA pattern, trying to optimize themselves on Trackman, etc. It seems to me that a lot of people could benefit from working on COFF, Building Blocks, and NSA and worry about the other stuff when the handicap gets real low.

K, point taken. I did go off and let off steam but then I do remember sometime back when this forum had a few more sub topics to it than just one. Now Goofies like me (soory Goof, I did not mean to upset Walt), find it hard to make a head and tail of the postings anymore.

One minute asking a perfectly layman question and then we are hit with a ton of technical details. Maybe BM will consider going back to threads like 'Basics', 'Inter', 'Advances', 'Really Advanced' and 'Off The Earth Golf Sciences'

 

[curtisj76]

First off, I'm not complaining. I really have no desire to learn the "techno stuff", I just want to GOLF BETTER. I've tried to understand but have failed (I'm no dummy either). The only reason I'd like to understand is because it seems like everyone is saying all this "new stuff" is better than sliced bread. I'm sure there are many others in the same boat. Once again, NOT complaining, just an opinion from a decent golfer who wants to get better and doesn't understand some of the lingo.

 

[softconsult]

My comments were not meant to imply that the technical information is not useful. It is useful. It is fun to learn what actually happens during the golf swing.

The forum is one thing. Actual teaching is another thing. My lesson with Brian is an example. He didn't get into any technical stuff. He established that I understood the basic golf lingo. He looked at my swing, changed my grip, changed my Driver ball position, and told me to think high fade. That was pretty much it.

Now if I get a chance at another lesson with him, I want to do it with Trackman. This give factual feedback and you could work towards a better swing based on this feedback. Then, by definition, the conversation would include the numbers.

 

[niblick1]

For everyone voicing some (often very legitimate) complaints about the technical details of this thread, I have two responses.

First, look at Brian's response to the ball position thread: it's VERY simple and very direct in saying -
A. You may want to aim a bit right for the driver and perhaps even a fairway wood.
B. You may want to aim a bit left for short irons.

You can take JUST that away, go to the course, and be in good shape.

Second, and more important, the great thing about Brian's forum is that it operates on MULTIPLE levels.
1. The brand new golfer who wants to learn how to grip it and pivot.
2. The guy shooting in the 90s who wants to some day break 80.
3. The scratch golfer thinking about competing seriously.

But that's not all! Brian is also communicating with a lot of other golf instructors, and with those who ARE interested in the technical details of the science of the golf swing. So he's not just teaching golfers, he's teaching teachers.

It's simply a fact that "teaching teachers" and having "scientific debates" will have to go on in a slightly different language than teaching students.

Personally, I can't quite follow all the trackman details, but I WOULD NOT want these threads to stop.

I do think there has been an interesting drift in the forum. If you go back and read threads from 18 months ago there were far more discussions about the grip and the pivot. Now you have newer golfers working on the NHA pattern, trying to optimize themselves on Trackman, etc. It seems to me that a lot of people could benefit from working on COFF, Building Blocks, and NSA and worry about the other stuff when the handicap gets real low.

I totally agree.

The d-plane stuff is invaluable but it seems to me it is going to help teachers the most, be a source of entertainment to people interested in the underlying science, and then help people who have pretty good clubface control and are refining their path/clubface relationship. But until you have good clubface control and awareness and can find a pivot that gives you a chance to deliver the clubface with power in a somewhat workable way, I think the d-plane info may have much less near term utility. At a basic level, I think most people have no idea whether they are swinging too right or too left to begin with.

I also suspect that a lot of people who hit some hooks don't realize they are really still, in some sense, slicers and jump to NHA when what they need is something else. I think one thing that might help some forum readers figure out what they need would be helpful would be a Manzella academy description of the multiple ways that you spot that you need NSA help, SD help, or NHA help, (or SF help or Pattern 13 help whenever those arrive), COFF or some combo. I think a person can figure that out from reading here but it takes a lot of time and good awareness of your own tendencies.

 

[dbl]

Fronesis, your post is quite a good clarification, that many technical posts are presented often for the benefit of other teachers. Instructors who regularly have access to Trackman etc can 'talk' differently or about different details than students.

I like the fact that BM's discussion threads operate on a vast range of levels, and I think that's a good thing for the inquisitive. And if something is beyond me or not needed, I leave it alone. Maybe later I'll dig the thread up when appropriate.

As to the form around here, I believe in time the website and forum will expand and change and so there won't be just one forum folder.

 

[Jared Willerson]

I am begging to differ here. What you are essentially placing here is that what BM or the rest of those 'science guys' here are infallible. Look, imagine this, a guy or a hacker like me is out on the course. Is that person likely to think about degrees, down hit etc or hitting it to the pin?

That put across, every golfer has a different swing compared to his neighbour. So how can we put across some instructions that will hep a golfer without 'BURYING THE POOR GUY' in details?

I came on to this forum looking for that and have progressed somewhat. Somehow I noticed that it has since went from good to almost good. Sorry for speaking my mind but being too analytical is not good for the game and the player.

Regards.

I said nothing of the sort nor did I imply nothing of the sort. No one is infallible, however the science behind a lot of these new theories absolutely BURIES anything else out there, from a technical perspective.

I did not use one ounce of "concrete" or "infallible" language in my post. I used the word may as in: "he MAY be already aiming left enough" and I used the word most as in: "MOST people naturally have a left or right aim bias"...even when they think they are looking right at the flag.

Come on now, surely your better than that. I think this stuff can help anyone. Just like knowing the yardage gaps between your 7 and 8 iron, don't you think it would be a good idea to know your aiming gaps as well? I sure as hell do. There is absolutely nothing "too technical" or "too analytical" about that either. It is just another piece of information that allows you to make a better decision.

 

[ggsjpc]

As one of those teaching guys, I can say that it seems like the information discussed isn't fully understood by some people trying to apply it. Not a good idea across all activities. For example:

I think it was curtis that told the story about aiming left and hitting it left then aiming straight and hitting it at the target. Assuming the ball actually flew straight(which isn't mentioned), that he hit it solid(not mentioned), from a level lie(not mentioned), with clubs correctly fit, on a windless day, curtis should now know 1 of 2 things.

1 his aim isn't where he thinks it is or
2 he has a liitle swing left already in it.

If it is number 2, that is really important info to know. As a teacher, this info is vital to understanding how curtis' swing is put together. Never needed trackman to tell him this but from learning in this forum, this swing shape should have been known. Brian has said countless times "aim or swing left".

A greater/deeper understanding needs to happen before trying all this stuff. Sometimes knowing what you do is more important than knowing what you should do.

 

[Jim Kobylinski]

I'm going to kill this damn computer...2 posts now i've screwed up some how.

1) Brian's response is appropriate because he was being challenged.
2) To the rest of you who isn't a teacher, what will make you play better golf: a) understanding the math behind it or b) understanding the relationship that you have to swing more in/out with a driver to counter-act the upward hit so it won't fade?

Man those 2 previous posts i wrote were good too. Sheesh