Okay.
So when a certain current PGA Tour player talks to me about not getting underplane and says that he counters that by feeling like he's coming over the top even though he knows in reality he doesn't.....the 'feel is real?'
When a tour player tells me that they are working on not getting laid off at the top of the swing by feeling like they are 'sticking their thumbs in their right ear at the top of the swing', the 'feel is real?'
I'd like to see that.
3JACK
That might actually move this thread back on topic.
If that's the explanation of why "feel is not real" - and I don't like the phrase - then the explanation only makes sense to me if the player is trying to make a model, or a method-type swing. A picture perfect swing, if you like, in terms of Jim Mclean's argument.
On the other hand, if you buy into the idea that golf is basically an exercise in adjustment, that fixes are a case of finding a clubface that is a little more open at impact, or a path that is a little more leftward through the ball, then Richie's examples make perfect sense to me and are consistent with feel being "real". Who cares, if you're not chasing a picture perfect swing, that a good path into the ball
feels like an OTT move? Surely what matters is the knowledge, based on understanding ballflight, that you're underplane and need to make a downswing that feels (in relative terms) more "outside". That, to me, isn't a conflict and it isn't proof that, in any important sense, "feel is not real".
What's also interesting, however you try to dress it up and whether or not these real, accomplished players think or say that they "like the concept" of learning feel from mechanics, is that they actually did the opposite. As Jim might say, where are the great players that have actually become great by doing it? And, as far as I'm concerned, a guy who made it as an elite amateur player or got to the tour before working with a TGM-influenced coach or anyone else who preaches "feel from mechanics" is NOT a good counter-example.