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

[HOT CHILLI]

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

Trackman...
Ok, playing better golf? definitely b, but I'm a bad example, I got a 10 in math...(out of 100)

 

[Steve Greffen]

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

Hah! Done that before...and same thing they were GREAT posts!! I have actually copied the text and saved it on word before so I didnt lose what I wrote!

Steve

 

[HOT CHILLI]

Really?

Hah! Done that before...and same thing they were GREAT posts!! I have actually copied the text and saved it on word before so I didnt lose what I wrote!

Steve

Yeah I learned it too last year after one of my looonnng post that I wrote... it took 2 hours and my computer crashed...
I almost broke my screen, but the keyboard didn't make it...

 

[cal7426]

Okay. Back to questions from dumb golfers.

Do you think Hogan understood (instinctively, if not mathematically) the swinging left idea when he recommended a closed stance for a driver to an increasingly open stance with the shorter irons. I think he said it was to do with hip turn, but.....?

 

[Kevin Shields]

IMO, you just have to know when you've had enough. For example, I dont and never have read ANY of Mandrin's posts. I just dont understand them at all. I leave them for the physics guys.

On the other hand, I'm the biggest Trackman junkie in the world because for some reason the info is very easy for me to understand and apply to my own swing. Guys, dont worry about certain things. NEVER has Brian said he recommends aiming left. He has ALWAYS said only if you want to swing parallel to your feet and strike down on a ball thats on the ground and hit it on the sweetspot....then you need to aim left.

 

[Richie3Jack]

I think it's more important to relate to the student so the student can understand the information. And this is talking about any type of 'teacher/student' relationship...be it a formal golf lesson or teaching a kid how to tie their shoes.

Jeff wanted technical information because that's how he felt he could best understand. Brian provided him with technical information. Part of it is not always giving what the student wants because sometimes what they want is not the best for them. It's more deciphering what to teach them and how to go about teaching it.

So, IMO, technical explanations do have a place for 'non-teachers' and the like as long as it is what's needed for the student to learn. For somebody like Fred Couples, just explaining him in extremely simple and basic terms and telling him what to do when it comes to D-Plane may be all he needs. For somebody else, they may need those technical explanations.

Doesn't make somebody 'dumber' or 'smarter' for learning that way, just a means to an end.




3JACK

 

[Richie3Jack]

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

For me, both.

I'm still learning the math behind it, but it's important to note. First off, let's face the fact that over the years golf instruction has told us things like 'this is the way you do it.' And then later on it will say 'no, no, no. THIS is the way you do it!' Then later on it will say 'nope, you're both wrong, THIS is what needs to happen.' Then later on we find out that it's somewhere between or all of those things are really completely wrong.

Probably happened countless times and for me, it's made me skeptical of all things. Not to say that I won't think it's probably right, but there is still some skepticism.

At least with the math we're starting to get a concrete logic and facts behind it, so I can trust it and that to me is a big factor in getting good results.

I'm only using this as an example, but at one time Mac O'Grady did not teach the golf swing to anybody. And regardless of what level any of us think of his ballstriking is (or his own teaching ability), he was a good enough ballstriker to make the Tour and collect two victories at pretty big events, and it wasn't due to his putting. He was also extremely long off the tee in his prime. We all know how technical Mac is (or heard stories about it) and that's the way he learned the game and perhaps that's because that's the way he is best off learning.

I can't get as technical as Mac, but from my own experience I work best when I can really uncover all of the nuts and bolts behind stuff like this, trust it, and then execute it.




3JACK