The other side of the story...

[Neuro Learning for Golf]

The Golfing Machine was a big part of my education as a golf instructor for 20 years. After that, in the late 1980’s I started studying about the nature of learning. By reducing information about the physics in the golf swing to “just in the ballpark” concepts, people have been learning faster and retaining information longer than when I was sharing detailed information.

I expand upon these ideas on my new site NLGLive.com – which, I welcome everyone to share their personal views at.

Michael Hebron

 

[Michael Jacobs]

By reducing information about the physics in the golf swing to “just in the ballpark” concepts, people have been learning faster and retaining information longer than when I was sharing detailed information.

Perhaps the detailed information was inaccurate, the research collected over the past few years is eons ahead of what The Golfing Machine and works like it can provide. The 'Resultant Path' is the single most important concept in the last 50 years, Flightscope - Trackman - 3D Motion Capture - Dr Aaron Zick - Dr Jorgensen are all gems. Far more important than how someone learns, in my opinion!

 

[drewitgolf]

The Golfing Machine was a big part of my education as a golf instructor for 20 years. After that, in the late 1980’s I started studying about the nature of learning. By reducing information about the physics in the golf swing to “just in the ballpark” concepts, people have been learning faster and retaining information longer than when I was sharing detailed information.

I expand upon these ideas on my new site NLGLive.com – which, I welcome everyone to share their personal views at.

Michael Hebron

Michael,

based on your research, would you say that applies to certain level of abilities more than others?

 

[birly-shirly]

Perhaps the detailed information was inaccurate, the research collected over the past few years is eons ahead of what The Golfing Machine and works like it can provide. The 'Resultant Path' is the single most important concept in the last 50 years, Flightscope - Trackman - 3D Motion Capture - Dr Aaron Zick - Dr Jorgensen are all gems. Far more important than how someone learns, in my opinion!

Michael - you've got a very respectable opinion, but in this case I respectfully disagree. Without taking anything away from the advances you mention (and I agree, they are gems) - I would think that anything that optimises the student's LEARNING would be a massive step forward.

I think you could make a case that the ballistics of impact and the physics of the swing have been fairly (not perfectly) understood for some decades. Whilst there have been advances in those areas, it's my impression that learning has been, comparatively, neglected. That would be part of the reason why so many people are so excited by Daniel Coyle's book The Talent Code.

Don't you agree that there are several swing methods out there, that have been out there for years in some cases, that would give very good results so long as the student can learn to execute properly? And that in many cases, practical and intuitive learning could replace analytical understanding of the ballflight laws?

 

[Richie3Jack]

I find that ballpark concepts are not a bad idea, but still have some pitfalls. I try to treat complex concepts by breaking them down and 'mastering' that part of the concept and then moving onto the next concept, master that..and so on and so forth. Then try to bring all of the concepts together, if possible, and see how they interact with each other. In the end, then the person fully 'owns' the concept. With ballpark concepts I find that there are just too many holes in knowledge that will arise.

Of course, it depends on how much the person wants to understand. I had a professor in Economics who used a very similar approach to mine...take complex subject/concepts and break them down and master each part then see how they interact with each other. But if he's teaching a Macroeconomics class, the student doesn't want to learn about microeconomics even if it may in the end help further their understanding of macroeconomics.

So there's the rub. Although that's probably where the teacher needs to do some 'selling' of what they are preaching. I do think people benefit greatly from understanding stuff like D-Plane and I'm certainly not a rocket scientist, so if I can learn it and use it to my advantage, the same should be true for most people out there.

I just wish more instructors and instruction outlets would embrace getting golfers to learn this stuff instead of shying away from it.









3JACK

 

[Damon Lucas]

The Golfing Machine was a big part of my education as a golf instructor for 20 years. After that, in the late 1980’s I started studying about the nature of learning. By reducing information about the physics in the golf swing to “just in the ballpark” concepts, people have been learning faster and retaining information longer than when I was sharing detailed information.

I expand upon these ideas on my new site NLGLive.com – which, I welcome everyone to share their personal views at.

Michael Hebron

Hello Michael!

Would you care to expound on these ideas on this site?
Who has benefitted(case studies) and how have you compared the two approaches?

Damon Lucas

 

[domo]

I find that ballpark concepts are not a bad idea, but still have some pitfalls. I try to treat complex concepts by breaking them down and 'mastering' that part of the concept and then moving onto the next concept, master that..and so on and so forth. Then try to bring all of the concepts together, if possible, and see how they interact with each other. In the end, then the person fully 'owns' the concept. With ballpark concepts I find that there are just too many holes in knowledge that will arise.

3JACK

Tying into birly's post, your approach falls into recommendations as outlined in The Talent Code. Coyle refers to it as "chunking" and part of the process of what he refers to as deep (or deliberate) practice.

 

[birdie_man]

To me it's all important.

Take in what you like, need.

Every golfer should know the basics of what makes the ball fly how it does.

 

[Brian Manzella]

This is all very simple.

Some folks can really teach golf. Some can't.

Anyone, and I mean ANYONE, can read any of a thousand golf books, and "make a hacker a better hacker."

Also, any method that uses a KNOWN WORKING GOLF SWING as a model, and gets the student to do 90% of that model, will produce results ranging from so-so, all the way to the "almost tour level."

Then we have the stone cold truth that you could have ALL YOUR FACTS WRONG, and still help a tour player win, and maybe even win big, even if your "wrong facts" + your teaching ability - the students interpretation = better D-Plane production, and (or) better contact.

For the 10000th time, here is my definition of what a really good teacher is:

A great golf teacher can help any student play better golf.

With almost any student, a great golf teacher can start getting measurable positive results early in their first lesson with a student. And they can make these measurable gains while utilizing orthodox procedures.

When they are faced with a student that doesn't respond to "normal" measures, they can invent new ones on the fly.

They can teach little kids of any age, They can teach older folks. They can teach world-class athletes, or non-athletes.

When you watch them teach live, they are as impressive compared to a "rank and file" teacher as a Ryder Cupper is compared to a club pro hitting balls, or short game shots.

When their information improves, their teaching does. But they can make sub-standard information "work" to its maximum.

They can teach teachers to teach better, and can adapt their teaching to any learning style.
​

Understanding how people learn, if you just haven't been blessed with the gift of teaching ability, is a very important "learn."

A teacher that fit the above criteria would almost never explain any concept "exactly" to any student.

Most of the time, the less the student knows—within reason—the better.

But, if you teach someone something that is not quite scientifically correct, or maybe even junk science, you'd be better off saying less.

Or nothing.

 

[Michael Jacobs]

Michael - you've got a very respectable opinion, but in this case I respectfully disagree. Without taking anything away from the advances you mention (and I agree, they are gems) - I would think that anything that optimises the student's LEARNING would be a massive step forward.

I think you could make a case that the ballistics of impact and the physics of the swing have been fairly (not perfectly) understood for some decades. Whilst there have been advances in those areas, it's my impression that learning has been, comparatively, neglected. That would be part of the reason why so many people are so excited by Daniel Coyle's book The Talent Code.

Don't you agree that there are several swing methods out there, that have been out there for years in some cases, that would give very good results so long as the student can learn to execute properly? And that in many cases, practical and intuitive learning could replace analytical understanding of the ballflight laws?

Birly,

Without a doubt there can be benfits from optimizing 'Learning' , snippets here and there would be a help. To any talented golf teacher, these things are fairly common sense items.

The point I am making here is that the notion that a lack of uncovering LEARNING OPTIMIZATION is not the reason previous generations of golf instructors and students failed. Previous generations' golf instructors failed because they didn't get it right... they were wrong !! My friend Brian Manzella started his career during that generation and has evolved to a present day expert. He looks back and admits the short comings of the past all the time, thats why I love 'em --

 

[Michael Jacobs]

I find that ballpark concepts are not a bad idea, but still have some pitfalls. I try to treat complex concepts by breaking them down and 'mastering' that part of the concept and then moving onto the next concept, master that..and so on and so forth. Then try to bring all of the concepts together, if possible, and see how they interact with each other. In the end, then the person fully 'owns' the concept. With ballpark concepts I find that there are just too many holes in knowledge that will arise.

Of course, it depends on how much the person wants to understand. I had a professor in Economics who used a very similar approach to mine...take complex subject/concepts and break them down and master each part then see how they interact with each other. But if he's teaching a Macroeconomics class, the student doesn't want to learn about microeconomics even if it may in the end help further their understanding of macroeconomics.

So there's the rub. Although that's probably where the teacher needs to do some 'selling' of what they are preaching. I do think people benefit greatly from understanding stuff like D-Plane and I'm certainly not a rocket scientist, so if I can learn it and use it to my advantage, the same should be true for most people out there.

I just wish more instructors and instruction outlets would embrace getting golfers to learn this stuff instead of shying away from it.


3JACK

It is very simple to take complex ideas like the D plane and make a golfer very easily understand in 'child like terms' without having to use ridiculous technical language.

Anyone who had to go out from day 1 and earn a living starting from scratch as a golf teacher has been able to take a complex idea and make it easy for a student. Flightscope has made it as easy as possible, the new machine coming out in 2011 has a super accurate radar and has animations and screens that mnake the learning process so simple. The new Flightscope creates a wireless network in the teaching area where a smart phone or ipad can join. The student can literally lay an Ipad on the ground and see your 3D ball and club results, make adjustments with the help of the instructor, tidy up the resultant path, club face, create power through effective body, arm, and club movements, then master all kind of shots. Sounds like a typical day at the Rock Hill Country Club on Long Island where my Xgolfschool is. You can catch the same thing happening with Brian and his little orange friend, but to find where he is you have to follow the 'where in the world is brian manzella thread'

Its not that hard folks, there is no need to do anything extroadinary or crack a code to 'facilatate a learning environment for student' etc etc etc

 

[wulsy]

Aha, perhaps this is the foreseeable reaction of disaproval to the huge tide of approval in favour of the scientific facts approach? For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction

Is this a suggestion about HOW to use the information, or a suggestion NOT to use the information? I'm not quite sure, maybe someone could clarify?

 

[natep]

Aha, perhaps this is the foreseeable reaction of disaproval to the huge tide of approval in favour of the scientific facts approach? For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction

Is this a suggestion about HOW to use the information, or a suggestion NOT to use the information? I'm not quite sure, maybe someone could clarify?

Sounds to me like a little bit of both.

Personally, my golfing success was always hampered by BAD information, not an inability to retain information.

In fact, in hindsight I would've been better off not retaining junk as well as I did.

 

[trickyric67]

I have to throw in my 2 cents,
you can teach me "how to learn" better but to quote my 7th grade home room teacher Mrs Curtain, "Garbage in = Garbage out".
In my lifelong pursuit of golf excellence I have learned 1 fact that stands above all others;simply put golfers don't get better because they are doing exactly what they are trying to do! Golf unlike any other thing in life has more "professional" instructors teaching bad information and students who "have learned how to learn" have learned far to well how to do things wrong. in the end they spend a lot of money on lessons and don't really get better at the game.
Since I have met Michael and Brian I have only been able to see them for a very limited amount of time due to location, but because the information is solid I have improved without having to go back every week. There are Millions of different golfers who can take a lesson from a properly educated teacher and no reason to make millions on the same few students because the information taught is flawed.
JMHO,
Ric

 

[Richie3Jack]

Tying into birly's post, your approach falls into recommendations as outlined in The Talent Code. Coyle refers to it as "chunking" and part of the process of what he refers to as deep (or deliberate) practice.

Thanks.

I've only read pieces of the Talent Code so far. And I've been told other pieces of it as well. I plan on reading it someday. But I really learned that from an Economics professor (the one mentioned) in college. His style of teaching is something that I've never seen a professor or other teacher try or want to try. His critics would say something like 'it's too easy for the students to get a good grade and they need to learn themselves.' But at the end of the day the % of his students that wound up actually fully understanding the subject at hand was tremendous. And that is with a 'boring' and 'hard' subject like Economics.

Personally I want teachers, regardless of what they are teaching, that get students to understand the answer instead of memorizing what the answer is.






3JACK

 

[birly-shirly]

Birly,

Without a doubt there can be benfits from optimizing 'Learning' , snippets here and there would be a help. To any talented golf teacher, these things are fairly common sense items.

The point I am making here is that the notion that a lack of uncovering LEARNING OPTIMIZATION is not the reason previous generations of golf instructors and students failed. Previous generations' golf instructors failed because they didn't get it right... they were wrong !! My friend Brian Manzella started his career during that generation and has evolved to a present day expert. He looks back and admits the short comings of the past all the time, thats why I love 'em --

Michael - you talk about "talented golf teachers" and their common sense. Brian talks about being "blessed with the gift of teaching ability".

If you mean what I think you mean, then my guess is that you haven't read Coyle's book, or Ericsson's research, or similar. Because, in learning terms, what you're saying is tantamount to teaching a "heavy hit" or that clubpath determines initial flightpath.

I take my hat off to you both as teachers - but I think the kindest explanation of what you're saying is that you're badly undervaluing the teaching skills that you've acquired.

 

[birly-shirly]

@wulsy - if you thought I was in the luddite tendency, then I haven't made myself clear. I'm all in favour of research and a fact-based understanding of what we're trying to do.

My only quibble is that I think the mainstream understanding of the physics of golf is already far in advance of the understanding of how to learn to execute. I think there is a tonne of "scientific facts" waiting to be either discovered or explained about how we could learn skills and perform much better. On balance, I think "learning to execute" is a bigger hurdle than knowing "what to execute".

@trickyric and natep - I understand what you're saying, but I don't think your situation is typical. Is it fair to use Golf Digest instruction as a benchmark measure of "not all that good" information? Because I see very few golfers at the range or on the course who LOOK like a GD photo-instructional but who can't play. I guess there might be a fair proportion of those golfers, who look nothing like any lesson I've ever seen in print, who would like to blame "bad information" for their problems - but that's another story.

 

[ZAP]

Any kind of teacher who is worth anything has an unquenchable thirst for having the student "get" what they are trying to teach them. I can only speak for my lesson with Brian when I say he has that thirst. The more I watch it the more I can see his mind working to try to get me to understand what I need to do physically without filling my head with a bunch of physics stuff.

As a golf instructor it must be tough to get into a person's head and figure out if they are a big picture learner or a step by step learner. I know for me I like to have the big picture put in front of me so I can get the pieces to fit together myself as I understand them. On of the favorite moments from my lesson was when Brian asked me to describe for him what I felt during a specific swing. I think my explanation scared him a little bit.

My next topic is about the student. Having a motivated and open student makes the process easier in my opinion. Reminds me of a story I read.

A student and a master were walking along a small stream. The student kept badgering the master over and over "Master when are you going to teach me". This went on for quite some time. Finally the master grabs the student and drags in him into the stream and holds him under water. After the student begins to panic the master pulls him out of the water and says "When you want to learn as badly as you just wanted to breathe...........then i will teach you."

 

[chipingguru]

From what I have observed over the years, the primary problem is the disconect between what the golfer thinks he is doing vs. what is actually happening.

Thus any endeaver, such as trackman, which gives feedback into reality is a step forward. But trackman + bad teaching probably still stinks.

Whay I find fraudulent are all these internet teaching methods that promise another 30 yards on your drive by the time you get through a small bucket of balls.

 

[Matt Bryda]

My only quibble is that I think the mainstream understanding of the physics of golf is already far in advance of the understanding of how to learn to execute

I don't know the current level of understanding of how to learn to execute But...

I do know the mainstream understanding of the physics of golf is still in it's infancy stage at best.


Has your local pro ever heard of D Plane?

Can your local pro describe to you ball flight based on D Plane information? In childlike terms?


Maybe in 10 years, maybe.


Can I?

Working on it.


Matt