Live from the 2007 MIT Better Golf Through Technology Summit

[mandrin]

A little modesty goes a long way

I felt the best presentations were from the golf professionals... The scientists, as usual, lacked the knowledge and application of the game...Why?...because either they cannot play at high level themselves or they just don't play at all...It was very evident in their own demonstrations and explanations. You can theorize all you want and intimidate others with all your intellect, BUT unitl you can do it yourself or help someone else do it..you really do not understand your area of expertise...Until you can do it better than us (the golf professionals), all you "Captain Scientists" out there, keep your condescending tones and remarks to yourself!!!!

NAT,

There is a huge crowd of golf professionals out there teaching golf. How many are truly professional? Even the most prominent teachers are frequently and enthusiastically criticized by many.

There also many scientists exerting their profession, but very, very few are professionally engaged in scientific matters implying golf. Question - why is science bashing a popular activity on golf forums?

With regard to condescending tones - there is a golf forum, not to be named here, which resembles a mutual admiration society, convinced possessing the final and eternal truth. .

BM’s attitude in regard to these matters is rather refreshing. In a poorly kept garden don’t get obsessed by bad weed, keep looking for flowers, even if there are only a few.

 

[Martee]

Bashing science in golf is not different that what happens in most areas.

Seems those who are on practical application side believe that those on the theory side don't understand the finer points and for proof they point out that for knowing all the theory, they can't perform.

I think it might be the idea 'what works in the lab isn't what works in the field'.

IMO the difference between golf instructors who have been exposed to the same information is how they apply that information. Lets face it some don't others may do it incorrectly while other may get it and apply it correctly. Even doing that latter, doesn't mean they all teach the same.

I think it really comes down to a lack of understanding, it is easier and more comfortable to stay with what you understand (be it right or wrong) than it is go with what you don't understand cause you really don't know what to do when it doesn't work.

Someone said that Golf Instruction is a combination of Science and Art..this probably has more merit than many acknowledge.

 

[shootin4par]

Bashing science in golf is not different that what happens in most areas.

Seems those who are on practical application side believe that those on the theory side don't understand the finer points and for proof they point out that for knowing all the theory, they can't perform.

I think it might be the idea 'what works in the lab isn't what works in the field'.

IMO the difference between golf instructors who have been exposed to the same information is how they apply that information. Lets face it some don't others may do it incorrectly while other may get it and apply it correctly. Even doing that latter, doesn't mean they all teach the same.
Someone said that Golf Instruction is a combination of Science and Art..this probably has more merit than many acknowledge.

that is exactly why I dont understand why more people dont look at what Mike austin was saying. he studied the sciences long ago and he produced a swing that any tour player would want.

 

[Brian Manzella]

that is exactly why I dont understand why more people dont look at what Mike austin was saying. he studied the sciences long ago and he produced a swing that any tour player would want.

Why wouldn't people look at what BRIAN MANZELLA is saying. He has produced 100's of PGA Tour quality swings?

 

[hg]

I felt the best presentations were from the golf professionals... The scientists, as usual, lacked the knowledge and application of the game...Why?...because either they cannot play at high level themselves or they just don't play at all...It was very evident in their own demonstrations and explanations. You can theorize all you want and intimidate others with all your intellect, BUT unitl you can do it yourself or help someone else do it..you really do not understand your area of expertise...Until you can do it better than us (the golf professionals), all you "Captain Scientists" out there, keep your condescending tones and remarks to yourself!!!!

Scientists really need to stay out of the golf business...and leave it to the golf professionals to teach and explain...imagine a guy like HK trying to explain golf in scientific terms and to golfers...now that must have taken some patience.

 

[Ringer]

Scientists should not be talking to the PUBLIC about golf. They should be talking to golf professionals about golf. A good professional will know when the science being presented is total crap.

MOST golfers would hear, "You don't need a backswing" and not have any reason not to give that man credibility. MOST golf professionals would hear "You don't need a backswing", test it, and come to their own conclusions long before implimenting it into any teaching.

My question back would have been, "Why must we do something unnatural and non-intuitive to play golf?"

 

[Tom Bartlett]

that is exactly why I dont understand why more people dont look at what Mike austin was saying. he studied the sciences long ago and he produced a swing that any tour player would want.

If you think MA is the be all end all, why hang out here? Unless...

 

[shootin4par]

If you think MA is the be all end all, why hang out here? Unless...

I am interested in the science aspect of the scientists here

 

[Tom Bartlett]

I am interested in the science aspect of the scientists here

What have you learned from Brian?

 

[Damon Lucas]

Scientists really need to stay out of the golf business...and leave it to the golf professionals to teach and explain...imagine a guy like HK trying to explain golf in scientific terms and to golfers...now that must have taken some patience.

Totally disagree!!!!

Golf professionals need to be MUCH more educated to enhance their teaching credentials. There is a lot of bad information out there. Golf professionals 'generally' are not the greatest students nor the most intellectual.

My point would be that the scientists, most of them at least, are running around doing studies, providing theses, WITHOUT consulting (quality)golf professionals as to what should be tested, how it might be tested, and who should be tested.

So we end up with the situation whereby whatever is popular on tour right now is deemed to be correct or where the scientists come up with some kind of model derived from their studies(model golf, golftec), and we just don't know!

A bit of give and take is necessary, from both sides!

 

[The Return of NAT]

You were there!!!

Totally disagree!!!!

Golf professionals need to be MUCH more educated to enhance their teaching credentials. There is a lot of bad information out there. Golf professionals 'generally' are not the greatest students nor the most intellectual.

My point would be that the scientists, most of them at least, are running around doing studies, providing theses, WITHOUT consulting (quality)golf professionals as to what should be tested, how it might be tested, and who should be tested.

So we end up with the situation whereby whatever is popular on tour right now is deemed to be correct or where the scientists come up with some kind of model derived from their studies(model golf, golftec), and we just don't know!

A bit of give and take is necessary, from both sides!

I totally agree with this post....Scientists need to consult with golf professionals on relevant studies and their application...and the golf professional definitely needs to become more educated!!!! A universal language would be nice...but it will always remain the "Tower of Babel"..For instance Shoulder and Hip Rotation in Golfdom refer to Torso and Pelvic rotation in the Scientific Community....

 

[mandrin]

I totally agree with this post....Scientists need to consult with golf professionals on relevant studies and their application...and the golf professional definitely needs to become more educated!!!! A universal language would be nice...but it will always remain the "Tower of Babel"..For instance Shoulder and Hip Rotation in Golfdom refer to Torso and Pelvic rotation in the Scientific Community....

I don’t think that the golf professionals have reason to be very proud on what they have put together collectively over all those years that golf has become a major human activity. There are still a lot of divergent opinions regarding golf instruction. The reasons? It is foremost a business, a means for subsistence, children to be fed, a mortgage to be paid and one’s turf to be defended.

Scientists are not really taking a serious interest in golf. There are a few papers published in some specialized scientific Journals and in the Proceedings of the World Scientific Congress of Golf, but for the general public there is not much beyond Jorgensen and Cochran et al. Pity that HK had to write using such an awkward enigmatic style. With a simpler more accessible appraoch it likely would have been by now a major reference in golf.

With regard to coherence of language. Let’s start cleaning one’s own playground. Why not start using simply systematically the adjectives ‘lead’ and ‘trail’ instead of ‘left’ and ‘right’. Even this very simply change makes life much easier for the many ‘struggling’ southpaw golfers, feeling left out. Big things are ‘fed’ by small things one can do immediately.

 

[golfbulldog]

World Scientific Congress is so expensive to try and get a copy of their publications!!

I agree with Mandrin that science not scratched the surface of golf yet... and golfers only taken on board the easy to understand aspects of science... but the truth often lies in the hard to understand bits.... the things that don't fit your current theory that you have taught for years... I have much respect for Brian because he is not scared of science breaking his established beliefs IF it means greater truths are discovered... and maybe even changing back... if evidence points that way....

OBJECTIVE 3D EVIDENCE of the golf swing is so hard to find... UK used to have 3D MATT analysis ( taylor made sponsored?) at the Belfry... i had hoped to get some baseline readings on their equipment prior to the season and lessons with Brian ( Brian loves facts and figures!!)... rang up and found that " due to lack of interest from the public it had not been financially worthwhile keeping MATT"...

The golfing public is happy to time their flips slightly better after a $150 an hour lesson and think that improvement has been made...

They ought to FORCED to witness fact!!!!! bare minimum a GolfTek style analysis ( with impact stickers to witness centredness of strike) prior to lesson

Titleist have a MATT style motion analysis system ( Titleist Performance Institute) and it needs to be tested by TGM people... take a K vest for good measure.... facts... as long as you understand the LIMITATIONS of any measuring device... facts are crucial...

Britain lost its chance for 21st century scientific evidence and sadly will revert to old style "anecdotal evidence" ... medical equivalent of "witches brew" working on my uncle... so it must be good!!!

 

[golfer24]

Thats a shame about the MATT system was going to do it myself also after we discussed it. Not sure how this thread has moved to a science v golf pro debate i was looking forward to Brians review of the speakers.

 

[FloydPT38]

I may have helped it move this way but I am curious - esp about a review of the fitness/therapist speakers. Not just how they presented but if the information was useful and if those who attended will be able to integrate in with their lessons.



Thanks,
Curious George

 

[Damon Lucas]

Floyd,

Yes-it was useful information.
Yes-I liked what they said.
Probably not-for the most part, would I use it on the lesson tee.
I'd be very interested in Brian and NAT's opinions on what percentage of lessons they get 'deep' into how the pivot and body move in a golf swing, given the tens of thousands of golf lessons that they have both given.

 

[FloydPT38]

Thanks Damon

CG

 

[The Return of NAT]

Floyd,

Yes-it was useful information.
Yes-I liked what they said.
Probably not-for the most part, would I use it on the lesson tee.
I'd be very interested in Brian and NAT's opinions on what percentage of lessons they get 'deep' into how the pivot and body move in a golf swing, given the tens of thousands of golf lessons that they have both given.

It was good information for the teacher...I wouldn't go there with 95% of my students...but the background information would be helpful in order to understand movement....especially if there are compensations due to limitations....Brian has taught more than I ...I've only given approximately 18,000 lessons in my career(all of which is well behind the "I-talian St-allion"
)

I am very fortunate to have had students that play at very high levels (PGA, LPGA, Champions, Nationwide, European,Futures, Hooters, Canadian Tour Players, D-I,II,III college, high school state champions, world and national ranked juniors)

Does this make me a good teacher or expert in my field?

NAH!!!

Just a good "bullshit artist" according to the scientific community.

 

[Brian Manzella]

Great Resume' NAT.

Here are the STONE FACTS:

The MIT Summit was a mix of about 60 TEACHERS, 30 SCIENCE GUYS, and 40 PHYSICAL GUYS.

The fact is is that they are ALL CORRECT to a point.

The Teachers know how to teach. The Science Guys know Science, and the Physical Guys know the body.

To me they just need to learn from each other, and that was done at this Summit.

Can't wait for next year.

 

[The Return of NAT]

Here are the STONE FACTS:

The MIT Summit was a mix of about 60 TEACHERS, 30 SCIENCE GUYS, and 40 PHYSICAL GUYS.

The fact is is that they are ALL CORRECT to a point.

The Teachers know how to teach. The Science Guys know Science, and the Physical Guys know the body.

To me they just need to learn from each other, and that was done at this Summit.

Can't wait for next year.

Are you running for office or what? Your last response is too politically correct...especially for the "I-talian Stallion"....

When you gonna post the grades?

...I know I got points deducted for the microphone AND Yellin your ear!!!

But I want to see the other grades!!!!

Here's mine

Suttie and Tomasi...B-...NBS vs BS ....ah...Okay?
James Leitz.....A+...The best presentation on Ch 2
Harper....B....Cool study...Ben told him he needs "educated hands"
Roberts....B+.....Cool presentation grip signatures...learn to read a timeline
Ostrow ...C+...great presentation but very condescending
Goldstein....B....yadda yadda yadda
Panel....D- Martino saved them from Failure
Martino...A+ believe it or not..this quy is pretty good
Edel ....A+ very classy
Orr....B+ dropped the microphone and the adrenaline was on an all-time high
Atherton ....B...Averages?...that's the problem with stats...and Model Golf
Putting Psychologist.....D-...10 in a sample????? are you kidding me?
Golf Digest dude...F...Stick to your stale subject matter...you can't hang

Nabori for Alpenfels....D...hope he had a good excuse for not showing


Who am I missing?


I went to Harvard during break to aquire more intelligence...didn't happen!!!