Tumble, no Tug drill

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Kevin Shields

Super Moderator
SteveT said:
It 'works' in your opinion? Would you care to back that up with scientific certainty, or do you revert to anecdotal evidence?

Chew on this: The neuro-muscular pathways between high and low speed human motion are very different, and one cannot instantly translate into the other.

So what makes the "drill" work?
Click to expand...

While I'm chewing on that, you can suck on this. People who tell me it helps them, I'll continue to use it. People who say it doesn't, I won't. For my own personal game, I might not even be playing without drills like this that help me feel what I am doing....and I don't do it very slow if that matters.
 
S

SteveT

Guest
birly-shirly said:
Steve - there's the science of what to do. And there's the science of how to learn what to do.

Which do you know something about?

I can't help but think that being able to spell "neuro-muscular pathways" somehow trumps the collective experience of 10s of thousands of students and teachers of dance, music, martial arts, tennis. In your mind, that is...
Click to expand...

Easy... Newtonian Physics covers "what to do"... and Human Perception and Motor Control covers "how to learn what to do".

I know something about both.

Doing some stupid "drill" and declaring it "works" is unscientific and unbelievable ... without explaining WHY it works.
 
L

Lindsey Newman

New
SteveT,

I am quite sure you are a smart fella. May I suggest that you share a little more "how to get better" information. You're always very convincing when pointing out the fault in something, but not so in solutions. Knowledge not shared is simply a waste. I look forward to you being part of the answers instead of highlighting the problems.
 
B

Bigwill

New
SteveT said:
Easy... Newtonian Physics covers "what to do"... and Human Perception and Motor Control covers "how to learn what to do".

I know something about both.

Doing some stupid "drill" and declaring it "works" is unscientific and unbelievable ... without explaining WHY it works.
Click to expand...

Why? If Brian or Kevin or Jim or any other guys here saw my swing, gave me a "stupid" drill that ended up working for me, why would I need to be able to explain why it works if it does, in fact, work?? Why I have to be able to explain why the sky is blue in order to verify my declaration that it is? Heck, isn't observation part of the scientific method?

Sometimes when you post, especially when it's something that gets a rise out of some of the other posters on this site and spreads, I get the feeling that you're more interested in the debate than anything else. I could be wrong; you know how unreliable those pesky feelings are...
 
S

SteveT

Guest
Bigwill said:
Why? If Brian or Kevin or Jim or any other guys here saw my swing, gave me a "stupid" drill that ended up working for me, why would I need to be able to explain why it works if it does, in fact, work?? Why I have to be able to explain why the sky is blue in order to verify my declaration that it is? Heck, isn't observation part of the scientific method?
Click to expand...

Kevin Shields posted the Noren 'drill', and I'm asking him why the drill 'works' on a scientific basis. All he can provide is that in his opinion it works in his teaching. Fine, but that not scientific, it's reputational.

If you are happy to put yourself in the hands of a golf teacher without question, then you believe ignorance is bliss.

"The golfing area of the brain is a fragile thing that is terribly susceptible to suggestion. Golfers are gullible." Who said that? Hint: He wrote it in his Little Red Book.
 
B

Bigwill

New
SteveT said:
Kevin Shields posted the Noren 'drill', and I'm asking him why the drill 'works' on a scientific basis. All he can provide is that in his opinion it works in his teaching. Fine, but that not scientific, it's reputational.

If you are happy to put yourself in the hands of a golf teacher without question, then you believe ignorance is bliss.

"The golfing area of the brain is a fragile thing that is terribly susceptible to suggestion. Golfers are gullible." Who said that? Hint: He wrote it in his Little Red Book.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. And you don't have to believe ignorance is bliss in order for it to not matter. Outside of discussion boards and the presence of swing geeks (which a lot of us here are) all many golfers are trying to do is score better. They go to the teacher for help. Knowing why a drill works isn't the point; knowing that it works is. The why is important for golf swing scientists and theorists (there's nothing wrong with golf science, obviously). It isn't important to know the science behind a drill on the course, or even on the range, IMO.
 
K

Kevin Shields

Super Moderator
It's very easy to lose sight of the fact that we are trying to reach regular golfers here also. The science is great but we're getting overloaded if we have to have science to back up why a drill may or may not work. I don't prescribe many drills. I would so much rather explain what to do, show it and have the student do it. But with that particular issue, so many golfers put one force on the club without having any of the other. So, isolating the other force completely often helps people.....myself included. I don't know if that will satisfy the scientific community, but what the hell.
 
D

DCgolf

New
My scientific experiments have been conducted on thousands of case studies. I work in an outdoor testing laboratory. My lab rats are real golfers hitting real golf shots. My methodology is an experimental trial and error process whereby effective remedies are utilized and ineffective ones are rejected. But I never discard the ineffective ones entirely knowing that they may soon be the effective ones. Like on the next student! Because I don't teach golf. I teach PEOPLE to play golf...
 
dschultz6072

dschultz6072

New
I don't give 2 shits about the science. What works for me is swinging left, lining it up a little later, tumbling, going normal, and letting my right wrist straighten. What's the science behind that? I probably know, but it doesn't matter if I do as long as I can put these feels into action, which I have been able to. Why does the tumble drill work for me? Because I still fight getting under the shot.

Did I mention I flew a bunker today I have been trying to just reach off the tee ever since I started playing golf? It's a 260-265 yard carry, and I hit it a little off the toe. A year ago I would have still been short.
 
B

birly-shirly

New
SteveT said:
Kevin Shields posted the Noren 'drill', and I'm asking him why the drill 'works' on a scientific basis. All he can provide is that in his opinion it works in his teaching. Fine, but that not scientific, it's reputational.

If you are happy to put yourself in the hands of a golf teacher without question, then you believe ignorance is bliss.

"The golfing area of the brain is a fragile thing that is terribly susceptible to suggestion. Golfers are gullible." Who said that? Hint: He wrote it in his Little Red Book.
Click to expand...

Steve - if you were half as smart as you act, wouldn't you think twice before quoting someone who espoused the virtues of slow-motion drills?
 
S

ScottRob

New
SteveT said:
Kevin Shields posted the Noren 'drill', and I'm asking him why the drill 'works' on a scientific basis. All he can provide is that in his opinion it works in his teaching. Fine, but that not scientific, it's reputational.

If you are happy to put yourself in the hands of a golf teacher without question, then you believe ignorance is bliss.

"The golfing area of the brain is a fragile thing that is terribly susceptible to suggestion. Golfers are gullible." Who said that? Hint: He wrote it in his Little Red Book.
Click to expand...


You sound like a one-legged man in a kicking contest...way too frustrated. Perhaps the locus of this frustration is your over reliance on the apodictic certainty of science. Science, like everything else, starts with presuppositions. You know just enough science to be its "bitch." If you have had the opportunity to be around the "big brains" they are not nearly as "cocky" about what science can offer. Brian, or Kevin would have helped my golf game out 10 years ago (even with so-called unscientific stuff)...Theodore Jorgensen, not so much! I still managed to learn how to break 70 by the time I was 16, even with so-called incorrect information. How do you account for that? You are arrogant to think that you can crack the golf code with a micrometer of some kind. Ultimately, correct science relating to the golf swing may end up on the junk heap of anecdotal information. I simply cannot take a person who "knows how it works" seriously if I am spotting them 2 a side. This would not be the case for Mr. Shields after he showed me the "tumble drill" on the range, before he schooled me on the course.
 
Erik_K

Erik_K

New
Correct if I am wrong but I thought Brian posted a video of tumble and the issues associated with being underplane. I thought he did, in that video, go over things like beta and gamma.

You may be selling Kevin a bit short. Just because he doesn't publish studies in peer-reviewed golf journals does not mean he is unfamiliar with golf science. While I don't teach golf for a living, I can't imagine Kevin breaking out a computer with swing models and associated equations of motion to fully describe why his drills work. Kevin is burdened with absorbing relevant information (scientific or not) and somehow using it to his student's benefit. For the most part he's likely interacting with golfers who can't break 100 or 90 (perhaps he has better students, but that's not important for the moment). Thus, his information must be of practical value and, with any luck, it gets the job done.

Would you have made this same comment 50 years ago, before the advent of high speed video and an understanding of impact physics? Would you have written off drills given to you by Jacobs or Penick just because they don't have an alphabet soup by their last names?

In short, Kevin and Brian are doing the best they can. I am actually thankful they represent what some might call the "transition" of the latest scientific findings to the practical world. One might say that Brian et al are the golf engineers...they take the careful and important work of Nesbit, Zick, etc and find creative and practical uses.

Erik

SteveT said:
Easy... Newtonian Physics covers "what to do"... and Human Perception and Motor Control covers "how to learn what to do".

I know something about both.

Doing some stupid "drill" and declaring it "works" is unscientific and unbelievable ... without explaining WHY it works.
Click to expand...
 
K

Kevin Shields

Super Moderator
Well, dont want to speak for him but i would like to think hes isolating the feel of using his right wrist bend. a high speed lagger with a ton of pulling force will rob himself of the ability to tumble the face so they often have to feel it immediately....or just single out that feel and make it the primary focus
 
T

Tball88

New
Kevin, would the split-grip drill accomplish the same thing? I'm a big time tugger, and I'm somewhat ok with that. However, when I want to hit a high draw, I need to get those hands releasing quicker and have recently been hitting some balls with a split hand grip to get those hands working quicker.
 
K

Kevin Shields

Super Moderator
Tball88 said:
Kevin, would the split-grip drill accomplish the same thing? I'm a big time tugger, and I'm somewhat ok with that. However, when I want to hit a high draw, I need to get those hands releasing quicker and have recently been hitting some balls with a split hand grip to get those hands working quicker.
Click to expand...

I do a version of a split grip for feel for sure
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top