Touch is something you create by hitting millions of golf balls." -Lee Trevino
any thoughts?
any thoughts?
"There is no such thing as a natural touch...
- Thread starter bryan@nobackswing.com
- Start date
- Status
birly-shirly
New
I think that if Lee Trevino doesn't believe in inborn talent, then the rest of us are going to have to work at it too.
mgranato
New
Jim Kobylinski
Super Moderator
disagree, i'm not saying you can be an "expert" that only has natural touch but if you have some natural touch making it better is a whole lot easier. It's similar to when you compare people who are talented and who are athletic.
birly-shirly
New
curious as to what people mean if they disagree with the thread starter.
If the argument is that learning touch is a natural process - then I can buy that.
Like eyeoffish says - some generic skills are learnt early in life and crossover to support new learning in new situations. Hand-eye co-ordination, distance judgement, rhythm and balance would all seem likely candidates to me for that sort of learning. They're also skills where intellectual understanding probably holds little or no advantage. But they all seem like skills that are liable to improve with practice. Lord knows, I'm living proof of the opposite...
If the argument is that learning touch is a natural process - then I can buy that.
Like eyeoffish says - some generic skills are learnt early in life and crossover to support new learning in new situations. Hand-eye co-ordination, distance judgement, rhythm and balance would all seem likely candidates to me for that sort of learning. They're also skills where intellectual understanding probably holds little or no advantage. But they all seem like skills that are liable to improve with practice. Lord knows, I'm living proof of the opposite...
Disagree... The minute I picked up golf, ( and i actually picked it up in my 30's ) I always had a natural touch around the greens. And my father was the same way. Like has been said, I always possessed good hand eye coordination ( baseball and basketball ) so this probably was a contributing factor. I've actually found sometimes if I go out and practice, I tend to think too much, and I actually regress at times.
I don't think that you can start out with tour-level touch. Maybe that's what Lee meant. But I definitely think that there are people who start off with better hands than others; we don't all start off at the same level. Some people have great hands and have a higher ceiling in that department than someone born with cinder blocks at the ends of their arms.
Dariusz J.
New member
Well...I sort of agree to Trevino if he assumes all people are equally talented. One who hit million balls around green will surely have a better "touch". We know that it is not like this though and we know that talent can "replace" some % of that one million balls.
Cheers
Cheers
S
SteveT
Guest
Trevino is spot on regarding the amount of practice that may be necessary to acquire "touch", and I think he means "automatic" touch.
His "million ball" practice must be done consciously so that the unconscious mind is trained to automatically produce that touch on demand in competitive performance situations and without excessively thinking consciously about what you want to do. It just happens.
Trevino came up with the same explanation that brain scientists are now working on at a deeper level to understand the conscious and unconscious mind and how they integrate knowledge.
Heed Trevino's advice... he's smart.
Last edited:
mgranato
New
Touch is the ONLY natural talent I brought to this game. I had the same touch when I was trying to break 95 as I do now when I break 65. It's the only talent I have that doesn't need regular maintenance.
1 million balls is crazy talk. It took no one on this board 1 million practices to develop the touch to reach for a door knob or apply the proper touch with a razor when shaving. Being in touch with gravity and having spacial awareness is about as natural as a talent can be.
I will concede that certain methods and instructors have successfully made these talents more difficult to use by unnecessarily reprogramming how we naturally access these skills.
1 million balls is crazy talk. It took no one on this board 1 million practices to develop the touch to reach for a door knob or apply the proper touch with a razor when shaving. Being in touch with gravity and having spacial awareness is about as natural as a talent can be.
I will concede that certain methods and instructors have successfully made these talents more difficult to use by unnecessarily reprogramming how we naturally access these skills.
birly-shirly
New
I agree that 1 million balls is a bit of hyperbole. But I agree with Trevino's underlying point, or at least the one that I think he's trying to make, as it's the same point that umpteen writers and researchers seem to be trying to make about talent, although it's highly counter-intuitive.
Everyone talks about how riding a bike is a natural motion - and I've ridden a bike my whole life. But since the turn of the year I've spent a LOT more time in the saddle than I would normally - and so many things about every ride are now better balanced and smoother.
I think there are things that are natural to learn - in that you learn them through trial and error, without applying verbal or analytical or conscious thought. You don't concentrate on learning anything - your learning is the inescapable consequence of a series of experiences.
I still think that a large amount of golf skills transcend any technique or analysis - that includes judgement of distance, pace, rhythm and the ability to make solid contact with the middle of the clubface. But it doesn't follow that those abilities are innate, or not developed through extensive practice.
Everyone talks about how riding a bike is a natural motion - and I've ridden a bike my whole life. But since the turn of the year I've spent a LOT more time in the saddle than I would normally - and so many things about every ride are now better balanced and smoother.
I think there are things that are natural to learn - in that you learn them through trial and error, without applying verbal or analytical or conscious thought. You don't concentrate on learning anything - your learning is the inescapable consequence of a series of experiences.
I still think that a large amount of golf skills transcend any technique or analysis - that includes judgement of distance, pace, rhythm and the ability to make solid contact with the middle of the clubface. But it doesn't follow that those abilities are innate, or not developed through extensive practice.
welshdentist
New
Some people learn quicker, or respond to coaching better?
Those who learn quicker = Natural?
Natural can mean anything, visual learner, quick to apply instruction.... etc etc
Natural = Fast Learner in my book. Anyone can learn, it's all about the individual and quality of information given.....
Those who learn quicker = Natural?
Natural can mean anything, visual learner, quick to apply instruction.... etc etc
Natural = Fast Learner in my book. Anyone can learn, it's all about the individual and quality of information given.....
S
SteveT
Guest
Okay, let's do the math.... 1,000,000 hits... 100 intelligent hits per hour... that means 10,000 hours of hitting golf balls to develop tour level "touch".
(You can easily hit 200 balls per hour, but that would only require 5,000 hours of hitting and perhaps not enough brain to neuro-muscular recovery time to allow the "touch" to properly evolve and mature.)
10,000 hours of practice is what was scientifically determined to be necessary to achieve an expert professional level of performance, whether it was piano or golf in a scientific study done by K. Anders Ericsson. So Trevino wasn't far off in his observations.
Then there was the late and great Mo "Pipeline" Norman who was reputed to be the finest hitter of the golf ball ever seen by Sam Snead himself. Mo was an obsessive-compulsive ball-beater and would hit 500-600 balls per practice session. He estimated that he hit millions of golf balls in his lifetime.... and all were Titleist too ...
(You can easily hit 200 balls per hour, but that would only require 5,000 hours of hitting and perhaps not enough brain to neuro-muscular recovery time to allow the "touch" to properly evolve and mature.)
10,000 hours of practice is what was scientifically determined to be necessary to achieve an expert professional level of performance, whether it was piano or golf in a scientific study done by K. Anders Ericsson. So Trevino wasn't far off in his observations.
Then there was the late and great Mo "Pipeline" Norman who was reputed to be the finest hitter of the golf ball ever seen by Sam Snead himself. Mo was an obsessive-compulsive ball-beater and would hit 500-600 balls per practice session. He estimated that he hit millions of golf balls in his lifetime.... and all were Titleist too ...
Jim Kobylinski
Super Moderator
Okay, let's do the math.... 1,000,000 hits... 100 intelligent hits per hour... that means 10,000 hours of hitting golf balls to develop tour level "touch".
(You can easily hit 200 balls per hour, but that would only require 5,000 hours of hitting and perhaps not enough brain to neuro-muscular recovery time to allow the "touch" to properly evolve and mature.)
10,000 hours of practice is what was scientifically determined to be necessary to achieve an expert professional level of performance, whether it was piano or golf in a scientific study done by K. Anders Ericsson. So Trevino wasn't far off in his observations.
Then there was the late and great Mo "Pipeline" Norman who was reputed to be the finest hitter of the golf ball ever seen by Sam Snead himself. Mo was an obsessive-compulsive ball-beater and would hit 500-600 balls per practice session. He estimated that he hit millions of golf balls in his lifetime.... and all were Titleist too ...
Practice doesn't make perfect, only practice that gets the ball to go where you want and remotely close to the hole especially with short game. Whole lot more than 10,000 hours.
S
SteveT
Guest
You got that right, but most homemade golfswings are the product of trial and error and error and error .... until something passable sticks, and then you can lie by saying you broke 100 and now you want to break 80...!!!!
I tried to develop a science-based swing many years ago, since I had no access to what I considered as competent teaching pros. I read their teaching manuals and it was just a collection of old thinking and mistakes. My "practice" was done in my home hitting room, hitting domes and ranges, and a lot of solo golf in the evening using a dozen balls per fairway. It paid off and I think I developed a decent game late in life... and I got a lot of polite complements on my swing style ... but I knew my shortcomings and tried to play around them. Now I just play casually and set a "personal par" for each golf course and play to that... and if I succeed, I consider myself an efficient "scratch" golfer...
magicmarker
New
10,000 hits is meaningless.
I've seen guys go way beyond that number practicing at my club and they flat out can't play.
What you practice is at least as important as how much you practice IMO.
Having a clear thoughtful vision for each shot vs. beating ball after ball mindlessly is very important.
Most important IMO is what you can't see or count, desire. How good does a player realistically want to become (in real terms, not pipe dreams), how hard is the player willing to work to get there, how confident is the player in their ability to exploit their up-to-date skill-set under all types of pressure, what is their true self belief rating. Unfortunately, it seems this is measured last and with the most difficulty in doing so, but the effects are real. That's why sports are unpredictable, it's also why Mark Sanchez is going to be starting to hold a clipboard pretty soon.
As for the OP and touch...hopefully start with a decent pair of hands, practice, practice, practice, learn all the variety of shots, master your favorite ones, be wise with shot selection, think of it like an employee, this shot is going to be working for you so choose the most employable shot. I see a lot of players get too creative/lazy with shot selection and throwing away strokes and any appearance of 'touch' along with it.
I've seen guys go way beyond that number practicing at my club and they flat out can't play.
What you practice is at least as important as how much you practice IMO.
Having a clear thoughtful vision for each shot vs. beating ball after ball mindlessly is very important.
Most important IMO is what you can't see or count, desire. How good does a player realistically want to become (in real terms, not pipe dreams), how hard is the player willing to work to get there, how confident is the player in their ability to exploit their up-to-date skill-set under all types of pressure, what is their true self belief rating. Unfortunately, it seems this is measured last and with the most difficulty in doing so, but the effects are real. That's why sports are unpredictable, it's also why Mark Sanchez is going to be starting to hold a clipboard pretty soon.
As for the OP and touch...hopefully start with a decent pair of hands, practice, practice, practice, learn all the variety of shots, master your favorite ones, be wise with shot selection, think of it like an employee, this shot is going to be working for you so choose the most employable shot. I see a lot of players get too creative/lazy with shot selection and throwing away strokes and any appearance of 'touch' along with it.
I think whether or not you have touch will identify itself easily in the first ten balls. And if this is not your gift it probably will take hitting another 999,990 to build the mechanics to substitute. Which isn't to say that because you have touch you also have the mechanics to make it meaningful.
i liked this quote because it was one of the best ballstrikers of all time (if not the best) seemingly saying that he didn't have any special touch that he didn't gain through practice and repetition.
- Status