But, as you said, if that idea is not developed from scientific research and implemented with expert instruction, it is idiotic to even try.
Last edited:
- Status
But, as you said, if that idea is not developed from scientific research and implemented with expert instruction, it is idiotic to even try.
Science is the background what we need and what have been missing.
We have to understand relations between club head and ball, but also all the body parts and club head. When we understand all those better, we can train people better. Most of people need someone there to help them but not really all. The worst case is that student understands much more about those moves than instructor, and I have seen that also. People need instructors, but good ones. Keep your eye on the ball is not enough any more
Better knowledge and understanding makes also easier to build the physical background for golf swing. When that part is understood, we start to take care of strength and also much more about flexibility, and stop trying to produce swing that our physical situation doesn't allow to do.
Then we get another question: how many of regular students are ready to do even minimum of the work they really would need to do. Outside of this kind of forums and groups, I'm quite sure it's about 1%.
Is that the reason why the instruction is what it is? We give the students what they want, when being too afraid to tell them what they need.
We have to understand relations between club head and ball, but also all the body parts and club head. When we understand all those better, we can train people better. Most of people need someone there to help them but not really all. The worst case is that student understands much more about those moves than instructor, and I have seen that also. People need instructors, but good ones. Keep your eye on the ball is not enough any more
Better knowledge and understanding makes also easier to build the physical background for golf swing. When that part is understood, we start to take care of strength and also much more about flexibility, and stop trying to produce swing that our physical situation doesn't allow to do.
Then we get another question: how many of regular students are ready to do even minimum of the work they really would need to do. Outside of this kind of forums and groups, I'm quite sure it's about 1%.
Is that the reason why the instruction is what it is? We give the students what they want, when being too afraid to tell them what they need.
dschultz6072
New
I think the only science people need to understand is how to move the clubhead quickly, efficiently, and smoothly through the ball and present a square clubface to the ball while doing it, if you call that much science. How the body "looks" while it does it is going to vary for every individual because we all have our strengths and weaknesses. This is why it still boggles my mind when people look at the kinematics. Did everyone not see Brian's picture/video theorist thread?
You really think so? And we get this
She really tries to do what you said, but without any understanding how her body should work. The most sad thing is, that she had several lessons and long weekend for learning golf before she came to me... spent some money there.
40 minutes later only by telling things..
She might come back in half a year, because now she knows what to do and don't need me for a while. Is better teaching killing the business?
Ain't that the truth, bra. But unfortunately the converse is also true.....
dschultz6072
New
That is a short, choppy hit at the ball, not a swing. A swing is practiced without a ball. A swing has a full wind up and travels smoothly through to a full finish. She obviously has no idea you cannot control the downswing because it looks like that's exactly what she's trying to do. Guarantee you if you told her don't hit balls for 2 or 3 weeks, practice a full backswing that smoothly progresses through to a full finish while keeping a steady head EVERY DAY for at least 30 minutes a day, she'd have VAST improvement. All one needs to understand is how the body and club sit at the top of the swing and the end of the swing. Problem is getting a student to do that. That, and she still gets golf ball after golf ball to HIT at every time someone wants to "teach" her.You really think so? And we get this
She really tries to do what you said, but without any understanding how her body should work. The most sad thing is, that she had several lessons and long weekend for learning golf before she came to me... spent some money there.
40 minutes later only by telling things..
She might come back in half a year, because now she knows what to do and don't need me for a while. Is better teaching killing the business?
This is all just my opinion on how beginners should be taught how to swing anyway. That's how I learned.
Last edited:
Amazing how you could see that from those stills
Anyway here is the truth what kind of swings they were and what length
dschultz6072
New
And from those stills I can see she is moving all over the place and lifting up off the shot, not to mention the 2 frames are not even close to the same motion. Those both look like terrible top of the swing positions to me regardless, but that's just personal opinion.Amazing how you could see that from those stills
Anyway here is the truth what kind of swings they were and what length
I've said my peace, so moving on...
Last edited:
Yes.. I'm terrible teacher because I couldn't make her perfect in 40 minutes and still some work to do
But we are talking about science and swing here, right? Science makes background for given information. Those first two images were there to point out how huge difference for results can be made with bad or good information. Just by understanding little bit about body movements.
What I meant that she will come back maybe in half a year, is that now she understands to what direction she has to move and that she have to work herself to get some changes done. After that it's time for other changes and so on. And they will also take their time. She got the basic information now and works to achieve that instead of what she achieved earlier really well... with bad results but perfect learning.
We instructors have to know and understand those things and transfer that understanding for students. Not only give advices what to do, but create understanding behind of that.
Frans@France
New
Love your place ! 4dswing technology?
Yes.
I have a perfect example of this. I was in Hilton Head during the filming of The Legend of Bagger Vance at Colleton River. Several instructors were trying to teach Matt Damon how to play golf instead of just teaching him how to swing the club. Matt, being the good athlete that he is, developed a shorter, choppier swing. I suggested they just teach him nothing but a long relaxed swing with no hit impulse...but the result was a swing that looked forced and choppy. With a long graceful looking swing, they could have used special effects for the rest...but I digress.
Kevin Shields
Super Moderator
Worst movie ever. Nice railroad ties and island greens in 1930. Also, Will Smith looked like about as much of an old beaten up caddie as I do Brad Pitt. Swings were bad, everything was bad. Two hours I'll,never get back. But now I digress.....
Brian Manzella
Administrator
Too me—and it may be just me—but this thread is silly.
I have been traveling around doing lessons on the road now for about 6 years.
Somewhere in the middle of it, I started to get a little better player, like a 8 or 9 handicapper.
I'd ask them, "Tell me about your game."
A few DOZEN times they replied, "I was a 15-20-25 'capper, and I got your Never Slice Again video, fixed my slice, and now I am an 8 an need some guidance to get to the "next level."
I'd never seen these folks before in my life.
So, the idea that an idea needs a teacher to baby-sit it 100% of the time is complete and utter BULLturds.
...............
All the stuff about the best way to teach a beginner could be argued for an eon, until there is a MASSIVE sponsored test/research.
...............
My OPINION is this on beginners: I have taught them short-to-long, with and without a ball, and full swings first with a ball and without.
I think it depends on the ability of the teacher.
I have been traveling around doing lessons on the road now for about 6 years.
Somewhere in the middle of it, I started to get a little better player, like a 8 or 9 handicapper.
I'd ask them, "Tell me about your game."
A few DOZEN times they replied, "I was a 15-20-25 'capper, and I got your Never Slice Again video, fixed my slice, and now I am an 8 an need some guidance to get to the "next level."
I'd never seen these folks before in my life.
So, the idea that an idea needs a teacher to baby-sit it 100% of the time is complete and utter BULLturds.
...............
All the stuff about the best way to teach a beginner could be argued for an eon, until there is a MASSIVE sponsored test/research.
...............
My OPINION is this on beginners: I have taught them short-to-long, with and without a ball, and full swings first with a ball and without.
I think it depends on the ability of the teacher.
S
SteveT
Guest
But Brian.... you are unique in your teaching method and philosophy. There are 50 million golfers worldwide and it's estimated that 90% of them can't break 100, and never will. 45 million golffing clowns and 5 million wannabe golfers. The teaching market is mighty slim because most who attempt to golf are too ashamed or too lazy to go to a teacher, and because going to a teacher means getting serious about golf. And then there is the money investment in something that's not tangible like a new $300 boutique putter.
Your teaching experience is limited to those few who are willing to make a commitment to golf, and will seek out help. The question is how can pure and applied science help them get better fast. Should they read up on science and get on their trial and error and error and error treadmill... or should they seek out a teacher who appreciates science and can apply it to get even better results?!
I would agree for the most part with SteveT’s original post. I am a bit surprised at Brian’s response.
The ‘DIY’ golfer has a much steeper and more difficult road to travel than the golfer who can have some professional guidance/instruction along the way. In the end the effectiveness resides with the individual golfer.
Clearly some of the concepts being discussed here require far more resources than what the average ‘DIY’ golfer has readily available to him, especially at home. The use of science does seem to have unraveled some of the mysteries and myths that exist in golf. This should result in the quality of golf instruction to increase.
Since science seems to be making the ‘video’ less than a useful diagnostic tool it would appear the required technology for quality golf instruction is limited for the most part to the professional golf instructor. I doubt going to a store to gain access too commercial technology wouldn’t really be of much benefit (accuracy, capabilities, etc).
Thus I think we are better left to having a professional golf instructor at least plant the seed if not develop the basis of the golf stroke based on the science.
If I am wrong, then I have really missed on how a ‘DIYer’ is to be able to assess the changes and analyze the factors that are not reliably detected with video.
The ‘DIY’ golfer has a much steeper and more difficult road to travel than the golfer who can have some professional guidance/instruction along the way. In the end the effectiveness resides with the individual golfer.
Clearly some of the concepts being discussed here require far more resources than what the average ‘DIY’ golfer has readily available to him, especially at home. The use of science does seem to have unraveled some of the mysteries and myths that exist in golf. This should result in the quality of golf instruction to increase.
Since science seems to be making the ‘video’ less than a useful diagnostic tool it would appear the required technology for quality golf instruction is limited for the most part to the professional golf instructor. I doubt going to a store to gain access too commercial technology wouldn’t really be of much benefit (accuracy, capabilities, etc).
Thus I think we are better left to having a professional golf instructor at least plant the seed if not develop the basis of the golf stroke based on the science.
If I am wrong, then I have really missed on how a ‘DIYer’ is to be able to assess the changes and analyze the factors that are not reliably detected with video.
dschultz6072
New
Trackman wouldn't be so damn popular if it showed things that golfers and instructors could already see.
Trackman see's the results of what the club is doing. It doesn't see how the golfer is making the club do what it see's. It can't see the intent, or the physiology of the golfer, can it? You still need an instructor that has the know how/experience to connect the two.
magicmarker
New
Because there is more to golfing than a full swing. If you wanna be the emperor of the range then by all means, hire a swing coach.
BUT
Cause and effect is all that happens on the course. Dictated by physics. Noting only the number of strokes. How often does the best looking swing win the tournament.............Now put your perfectly scientifically monitored swing on a links course with howling winds and stinging rain. Golfing great or not so great, it always requires some grinding.
Number one player in the world.......#1 in putts gained...fewest 3 putt percentage.
It's an illusion to think that if you had the best swing you would be the best golfer, it takes more than that.
A LOT MORE....
BUT
Cause and effect is all that happens on the course. Dictated by physics. Noting only the number of strokes. How often does the best looking swing win the tournament.............Now put your perfectly scientifically monitored swing on a links course with howling winds and stinging rain. Golfing great or not so great, it always requires some grinding.
Number one player in the world.......#1 in putts gained...fewest 3 putt percentage.
It's an illusion to think that if you had the best swing you would be the best golfer, it takes more than that.
A LOT MORE....
Jared Willerson
Super Moderator
I disagree. I think golf is a game for facilitators rather than teachers. Point a student in the right direction and let them branch out/expirment with concepts and check back.
Ernest Jones once said that golfers need to be allowed to do this, it satisfies mans natural curiosity.
Ernest Jones once said that golfers need to be allowed to do this, it satisfies mans natural curiosity.
- Status