I have read a few posts lately, including this one from DC about "removing the reward", apparently a Manzella-ism which Kevin Shields also endorsed. Clearly a concept which makes a lot of sense and one which I had independently discovered and used.
But in order to remove the reward you have to DEFINE it first. Hence a thread which highlights "problems" and which reward the golfer has by using them.
I'll start:
AoA too steep. What's the reward?
From an entirely empirical perspective, I believe one can change a motion IF and only if the ball flight is changed. Someone mentioned taking away the reward, I might change that to changing the reward. I believe the correction for a slice is a hook for a period of time. For the same reason the player started hitting slices in the first place-by reacting to the flight of the golf ball. Golf is a reactive game, not a proactive one. We all react to one of two things: the shot we just hit or the shot we usually hit. I have rarely seen this to fail in 30 years of teaching. All the drills in the world will not change anything if the golf ball keeps curving to the right. Even Hogan didn't practice with the wind at his back for this very reason. Reaction. Give them a strong grip, ball back, closed stance, early release, whatever you have to do to get the ball to draw/hook for two weeks and I'll bet the move changes.
But in order to remove the reward you have to DEFINE it first. Hence a thread which highlights "problems" and which reward the golfer has by using them.
I'll start:
AoA too steep. What's the reward?