Kevin Shields
Super Moderator
?????
Right Shoulder
- Thread starter Lifter
- Start date
- Status
?????
Imagine that you've been working with an amateur and y'all have figured out certain changes that have resulted in better ballstriking for him than ever. His TrackMan numbers are excellent. He continues on with those changes and successfully ingrained them.
Eventually, the amateur comes to you and says that he's extremely happy with the progress you've made so far but he wants to take his ballstriking to the next level. He wants to hit his drives even farther and even straighter.
How do you figure out what changes are needed for this student (who is already hitting it great) to reach the next level? If you're not consulting your personal list of moves that might work for this student, then what else is your strategy?
Brian Manzella
Administrator
TrackMan numbers are the result of your hand path, the force along it, and the torque about it.
That hand path—and those forces and torques—are a product of hands, wrists, arms, and body movements.
You can't change ONE without changing the other.
We have our set of movements and alignments that we use to effect the numbers that make the ball fly wherever it does.
And we believe ours are better than anyone else's in the industry.
And I promise you, they get upgraded everyday.
Many research trips on tap.
That hand path—and those forces and torques—are a product of hands, wrists, arms, and body movements.
You can't change ONE without changing the other.
We have our set of movements and alignments that we use to effect the numbers that make the ball fly wherever it does.
And we believe ours are better than anyone else's in the industry.
And I promise you, they get upgraded everyday.
Many research trips on tap.
Kevin Shields
Super Moderator
Y'all?? What's next......bruh??
Well, you said yourself the student is already hitting it great. So your definition of the next level and mine might be totally different. Has this person learned to score the lowest possible with his new skill set? If not, there is no next level of ball striking in my mind. I'm a GOLF teacher first and foremost. I've tried to explain to many students that they can have my game and ill take theirs and ill still beat them.
Anyway, your example is a bit too hypothetical. Most students that are hitting it great dont tend to be immediately looking for some next level. But if they wanted to hit it longer and straighter, of course there would be things to try based on things that have worked for others or may work for this person based on an educated guess.
Kevin Shields
Super Moderator
There's a difference between a list of supposed optimal list that everyone should follow and multiple solutions that may or may not work and being able to sift through and pick the right ones. Semantics perhaps, but I see a big difference in the approach I believe you are currently in favor of.
Oh, I'm all in favor of "sifting" and "picking." Remember, I described my personal process here http://www.brianmanzella.com/golfing-discussions/17951-john-jacobs-process.html and you largely agreed with it.
I'm actually having a lengthy argument right now with someone who thinks there's an even more effective process available than "sifting" and "picking." I'm skeptical, though.
Sounds like a "list" of moves to me!
Does the student in this case put any effort into trying to figure out what he might do to take it to the next level? Or....does he simply act like a total robot doing only what his instructor tells him?
I have a hard time believing a 15 could go to a 2 and still be looking to an instructor for swing mechanics that will allow him to get to the "next level". At some point you have to get off all the forums and start learning how to play. Too many golfers think they get to a Kevin Shields level via the swing. I'm pretty sure Kevin will agree there is a LOT more to it than that.
Brian Manzella
Administrator
This thread could have been a good one....I will let it live for a bit more, maybe it can be saved. But I promise, It will be the last of its kind.
grahler
New
I think the same point was brought up by the guy who wrote 5L. "All right shoulder is all wrong" (or something to that effect.)
drewyallop
New
Code Blue! CPR required!
dschultz6072
New
If lowering your head is "optimal", why does Sergio Garcia say, out of his own mouth, he tries to keep level?
The quest continues. Another micro move to work on. But which one?
The quest continues. Another micro move to work on. But which one?
BertramSterling
New
Valid question - why then is there very little discussion in this area? Both online and in teaching in general the technique is what everyone is fixated on.
(I agree by the way)
Dear Lifter,
Your recent posts here and on the other site you refer to ("lengthy argument") have IMO surfaced a major problem in the golf instructing and golf learning communities that BOTH have not, but need to address. This dilemma is whether to treat various elements of the bodies role in the golf swing in a 'reduction-istic' sense, or as 'sub-systems, which are part of a larger system.
As background, I was tutored and mentored in science and to a degree in philosophy by my older brother. Fortunately to my advantage, pursuing degrees from MIT and Wharton, and then his career academic life often brought him in contact with leaders in both these fields.
One of his peers, Dr Russ Ackoff, a pioneer in 'Systems Thinking', referenced in the paragraph that follows, was also one of the authors of the first textbook on the subject of "Operations Research", which deals with optimization methodology.
"Reductionism vs Systems Thinking
According to Kirby and Rosenhead (2005), "the fact that these systems were experiencing profound change could be attributed to the end of the "Machine Age" and the onset of the "Systems Age". The Machine Age, bequeathed by the Industrial Revolution, was underpinned by two concepts – reductionism (everything can in the end be decomposed into indivisible parts) and mechanism (cause-effect relationships)".[2] Hereby "all phenomena were believed to be explained by using only one ultimately simple relationship, cause-effect", which in the Systems Age are replaced by expansionism and teleology with producer-product replacing cause-effect. "Expansionism is a doctrine maintaining that all objects and events, and all experiences of them, are parts of larger wholes."[8] According to Ackoff, "the beginning of the end of the Machine Age and the beginning of the Systems Age could be dated to the 1940s, a decade when philosophers, mathematicians, and biologists, building on developments in the interwar period, defined a new intellectual framework".[2]"
I have tried to use a systems approach to identify and concentrate on just a few of what I believe to be the 'CRUCIAL' golf swing controlling parameters to 'optimize' distance, while minimizing target error, and injury potential. Others, I am sure have other 'constraints' against which they are performing THEIR optimizations. However, IMO, and much too often at the expense of the student (as is the case here) some teachers try to treat far too many very detailed, and less important swing output affecting variables. Since in the golf swing, there are some very complicated inter-relationships, adjusting one variable positively, will often create a negative effect in another variable, sub optimizing, or worse yet more negatively affecting the quality/efficacy of the swing.
I believe many of the elements you have written about and are trying to change or control, can become psychologically and/or physiologically nonproductive in meeting your 'optimization' criteria WHEN MEASURED quantitatively and objectively.
More if you wish by PM, or travel to Los Angeles etc.
Sincerely,
art
Kevin Shields
Super Moderator
Thanks for the comments but it could be anybody. I was curious about the 2 handicap hand path comment. One of my biggest fears of a golf lesson is something like this. You think you have the perfect lesson. Golfer hits 7 iron 135 with a bloop fade, you catch lightning and get him hitting it 155 with a slight draw. So now he has, say 4 handicap skills instead of 20 handicap. But if he goes out and plays the same course, with the same mindset and strategy, the same fears, and worse of all, pulls 7 iron the first time he has 135, what was the lesson worth?
Jim Kobylinski
Super Moderator
Yes because your lesson wasn't teaching him confidence on the course. It's a slippery slope, i've tried to do a bit more of playing lessons to get people to lower their scores because too many students simply come to me to try and find "the magic" that will make them play better but keep making the same poor decisions on the course and they don't lower their scores.
I think we need to find a way to help students take that new range swing to the course to see if it works, for them. Sometimes it doesn't and we as teachers need to adjust them but sometimes it will work and we just need to get the student to trust it.
It's a slippery slope because as Brian once told me, "anything...ANYTHING...can work on the range; few things work on the course."
If a golfer's post-lesson experience plays out the way Kevin describes it, doesn't that mean that he didn't spend enough time committing to and getting comfortable with the change?
When you make swing changes, they will inevitably feel uncomfortable. And the only way to truly get comfortable with the change is if it helps you create a much better ballflight. Associating a swing change with superior ballflight is required in order to overcome the hurdle of lack of comfort. That will make the swing change your new "go-to" move that you must rely on or else you'll hit it badly.
Those words in bold are really key. That's what conviction that your new move is right for you really means. On the golf course, when you hit a bad shot, you must conclude that you failed to exaggerate your new move enough. And when you hit a good shot, you must conclude that you successfully exaggerated your new move. Right?
Kevin Shields
Super Moderator
Lifter, with all due respect, you talk as if you've been teaching golf for twenty years. How do you know about swing changes apart from your own experiences? Believe me, they don't all feel uncomfortable.
If I'm writing things that are obviously clueless, feel free to explain why they are.
I'm saying that substantial swing changes are typically uncomfortable, so most golfers will revert back to their old tendencies. But if the "uncomfortable" swing change consistently results in superior ballflight, then "uncomfortable" might become "comfortable" in a hurry. The golfer will be afraid not to employ the swing change.
- Status