What is Optimal?

[GPM1985]

"The purpose of the golf swing is to create solid impact and hit good golf shots. THE METHOD EMPLOYED IS OF NO COSEQUENCE AS LONG AS IT CAN BE REPEATED". John Jacobs

Unpack your quotes a little. You leave this post open to multiple interpretations, at least one of which you clearly consider to be deeply insulting.

Do you have your own opinion on "What is optimal?" If so, please share.

I think a static definition of optimal is going to be pretty hard to determine. I posit that optimal will mainly have to refer to ball-flight rather than the mechanics of the swing, simply because no two swings are exactly alike and yet many different swings can produce the same (or extremely similar) ball-flights.

 

[DCgolf]

DC,

It sounds like Mr. Jacobs meant, "use whatever works." We're trying to figure out what works best.

If you aren't all that interesting in discovering/debating golf swing, might I recommend a non-golf-instructional forum?

BTW, the Jacobs comment is the the essence of discovering "what works". The real genius of Brian's approach to teaching golf is that he solves golf equations, much like I learned to do from John when I worked under him many years ago. There is nothing all wrong or all right in the golf swing, it is simply a matter of putting compatible variations together and knowing which fit with which. That is what great teachers do. I walked with a kid yesterday in a Hooters tour event who, if his swing was sent in on video, would be ripped to shreds. He was an all American, played on the Walker Cup and his season scoring average is 69. Totally brilliant at putting together his otherwise "faulty" positions. Very strong grip, ball way forward, aimed left, reversed pivot, laid off at the top, backed into it, held on and hit it dead down the middle all day long. If you corrected any one of these things, the entire balancing act would have been thrown off and he couldn't play dead. That is what Brian Manzella does so well and why I have been attracted to his forum. DC

 

[DCgolf]

Unpack your quotes a little. You leave this post open to multiple interpretations, at least one of which you clearly consider to be deeply insulting.

Do you have your own opinion on "What is optimal?" If so, please share.

I think a static definition of optimal is going to be pretty hard to determine. I posit that optimal will mainly have to refer to ball-flight rather than the mechanics of the swing, simply because no two swings are exactly alike and yet many different swings can produce the same (or extremely similar) ball-flights.

Yes sir, see last comment. Optimal to me is "compatible". Our job as teachers is to balance the equation. We do our job when we do, and we dont do our job when we upset the equation just because some grip, plane, posture etc is not by some book. Optimal would be a club face, path, angle that produce good solid impact on a consistent basis. Could be from a strong grip, weak grip, wide stance, narrow stance, it simply has to blend with the rest of that persons action. Upright golf swings cannot lag the club into impact nearly as late as flat ones or the bottom of the arc is simply too far forward. There are a million possible combinations and we have to find the right one. That is the fun and thrill of non method teaching.

 

[birly-shirly]

DC - I'm liking all your posts on this thread, and I'm a huge John Jacobs fan.

As regards "optimal" - repeatable is part of the criteria though. So, in practice, how big a deal is "repeatability" for you?

I mean, in the sense of, do you ever see someone striping it on the range but say to yourself, "that might not work quite so well tomorrow, or on the course, or down the stretch with the pressure on..."

 

[birdie_man]

I had some drinks last night. Oh dear. Maybe I shouldn't laugh at my own jokes..

 

[DCgolf]

DC - I'm liking all your posts on this thread, and I'm a huge John Jacobs fan.

As regards "optimal" - repeatable is part of the criteria though. So, in practice, how big a deal is "repeatability" for you?

I mean, in the sense of, do you ever see someone striping it on the range but say to yourself, "that might not work quite so well tomorrow, or on the course, or down the stretch with the pressure on..."

birly-shirly. Of course repeatability is the key. When I first learned from Jacobs, as did Haney, Hardy and many others, he was the first one who taught me to teach by the flight of the golf ball. To see him work was pure genius and Brian Manzella reminds me a lot of a young Jacobs. That "method" can best be described as "fix the problem". What is the problem? Well the answer lies in the shots they hitting. This thread began with the topic of optimal and all I'm saying is that impact is the judge of what is optimal for the individual player. No other criteria as I see it. Remember that Jacobs said "as long as it can be repeated". Thx, dc

 

[ScottRob]

Is it just me or is it tough to rate teachers that know less about ball flight than high handicappers...that follow on this site? Much like we do not rate doctors that practice blood letting! My tongue is in my cheek. Anybody want my copy of Total Golf?

 

[ggsjpc]

birly-shirly. Of course repeatability is the key. When I first learned from Jacobs, as did Haney, Hardy and many others, he was the first one who taught me to teach by the flight of the golf ball. To see him work was pure genius and Brian Manzella reminds me a lot of a young Jacobs. That "method" can best be described as "fix the problem". What is the problem? Well the answer lies in the shots they hitting. This thread began with the topic of optimal and all I'm saying is that impact is the judge of what is optimal for the individual player. No other criteria as I see it. Remember that Jacobs said "as long as it can be repeated". Thx, dc

The only problem I see by working off of ball flight alone is that it isn't a good indicator of impact unless the player always hit it in the middle which they don't.

 

[DCgolf]

The only problem I see by working off of ball flight alone is that it isn't a good indicator of impact unless the player always hit it in the middle which they don't.

John: ball flight or lack of it. Topping, toe hits, slices etc are as indicative of correctional needs as more well hit misses. Point being that most players fall into one category and that group produces a "family" of shots. Example: Shallow fat shots, hooks and heel hitting are, to me, in one group. Maybe call it the under, in to out flip shanker group. This guy is not suddenly about to hit an out to in steep slice. So we have a starting point, a basis to decide what would be optimal for that student. Better yet, in my experience, players missing it off the toe do not also miss it off the heel. So I need to know the misses to know to begin the correction. Thx. Dc

 

[tobell]

With respect to the swing I believe that there is often a difference between the "optimal" swing you may find on the range and the most effect swing that works best for one in play. Most of us have experienced this. Personally I can hit a high draw on the range, but I am not at all comfortable doing it in play. Psychological baggage doesn't impact you on the range as intensely as it does in play.

Interestingly, Tiger claims he has his new "Foley" swing on the range, but is yet to take it to the course for a full tournament. Obviously this is why we say golf is "between the ears".

 

[ScottRob]

The only problem I see by working off of ball flight alone is that it isn't a good indicator of impact unless the player always hit it in the middle which they don't.

Without Trackman or Flightscope what else is there? Are there any divot whisperer's out there? Can we hazard a guess at the angle of attack by study divots? I am not a technophile but it seems unlikely that you can ascertain the all important AA without some sort of gadget, although I would happily take the eyeballs of many on this forum!

At least you can tell what the strike was like, angle of attack seems to be a bit of a crap shoot.

 

[mjstrong]

I had some drinks last night. Oh dear. Maybe I shouldn't laugh at my own jokes..

Can you please always post when you drink? I'll promise to do more of the same if you do...

 

[mjstrong]

If I wasn't "all that interested" in the topics discussed in this forum, I would not have have dedicated the last 30 years of my life to teaching and studying the game of golf and the teaching of it to over 35,000 students. Nor would I be recognized as a PGA Master professional and a 3-time teacher of the year by the PGA of America. Before you insult someones passion and dedication, perhaps you should consider the source of the comment. DC

Whoa.

Later on in this thread, you go on to talk about how optimal means compatibility, which I agree with. That makes me wonder why you posted your original comments in this thread. If we are searching for compatibility, why wouldn't we debate about it?

My comments were a response to a post that appeared to dismiss the validity of this debate. If that wasn't your intent, I apologize, but don't take it to heart. Posting on internet forums does not allow for tone, and one's true intent often does not come through.