|
Post by Richie3Jack on Apr 12, 2011 15:13:13 GMT -5
The most interesting instructional statement that may create a trend was made by the champ. Charl Schwartzel said his father has been his only teacher. He only gets looked at when he is in SA and does not use video or email to work on his game. He tries to keep it simple. Are we getting too detailed and complex for our own good? Dodger – I discussed some of this in another thread. As I’ve begun to learn more and more about the swing, putting and the game in general and now I’m consistently shooting under par (my latest index is at +2.3 which is the lowest it has ever been), I start to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the PGA Tour player’s abilities and mindsets. One thing I’ve heard from 4 different instructors, each of whom work with a multitude of PGA Tour players is that they prefer working with amateurs over PGA Tour players. Now, that may sound like hyperbole, but I do think they honestly believe that. I think the great thing about working with PGA Tour players for them is that they are generally easier to make progress with. They can simply be taught something so simple and ‘make the most out of it.’ Also, working with genuine, well-known Tour players helps their wallet. But the issue they have with Tour players is all of the same, Tour players are very skeptical about trying anything new and go with their belief system, no matter if it’s dead wrong or not. As Mark Sweeney has told me…he has a student that is a former Major champion. He’ll ask him how much a putt will break and he’ll reply something like ‘8 inches.’ Sweeney will then explain that it is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for that putt to go in and break 8 inches. The student’s reply is that he doesn’t fully buy into it because he’s relying on instinct and his instincts are what made him successful in the first place. It’s like saying to somebody that the earth is round, but they tell you that the earth is flat from their experience and they’re going to stick with that because they gotten around fine in their life with the belief that the world is flat. So, with Tour players you get a lot of that stuff…they’ll buy into but only so much and if it’s something very important and they don’t buy into it…that causes problems. That’s where I admire their talent. Most of them figured a lot of ‘good things’ out with their swing and their putting, etc on their own. For instance, Geoff Mangum has a practice putting stroke routine that allows the golfer to use their brain to naturally get the right stroke so they have the right touch with the putter. The other day I was watching some footage of Crenshaw in his prime and he was doing something very similar. I don’t think he was taught that, but he just kinda figured it out on his own over time. Or somebody like Fowler who appears to have very ‘pedestrian’ type of instruction, but he has an incredible transition. But what usually happens is when things go wrong and they cannot figure out why they are going wrong. That mis-aligned part of their swing that they made the right compensation for over and over again? They start to no longer make that right compensation. It’s like giving somebody directions in a car. You need to know where they are first so you can direct them to their destination. The issue Tour players who have problems with their swing and can’t correct them, because they don’t really know where they are, they can’t figure out how to point themselves in the right direction. I believe most of the Tour players have what I call ‘swing coaches.’ That’s basically the coach tells the student what to do and they do it. Simple as that. I think golfers in general, even Tour players, will benefit better from ‘swing instructors’ which I believe actually ‘teach’ the student so the student can understand what and why they are doing it. I think that’s what happened to guys like Ian Baker-Finch. They didn’t know what they were doing and their answer was to go to some ‘guru’ and hit a lot of balls. But since he didn’t know much about the swing and didn’t care to know, he couldn’t spot the bullshit and take the good stuff in. Also, a lot of these instructors may have taught sound mechanics, but they were probably teaching mechanics by feel instead of the other way around (feel by mechanics). The problem is that while a component of the swing may be correct/good for a player, their feels may vary from the teacher’s feels and they never get to quite execute that component properly. IMO, it’s not about ‘getting into too much detail’ or ‘making it simple’, it’s about the instructor teaching the student so they not only execute the plan, but understand the plan. It’s much like Michael Breed. If I asked him the ball flight laws, there’s no doubt in my mind he would get the *correct* or pretty close to correct. But, when he gives instruction on TV, it’s obvious that he doesn’t understand the ball flight laws because he doesn’t know how to apply them. It’s obvious to me that he’s memorized the ball flight laws, but doesn’t understand them. I think the average golfer would much more greatly benefit from ‘understanding the swing’ than the PGA Tour player because the Tour player’s ability to figure things out is pretty incredible. But, when any player can’t figure it out, it’s a really bad situation if they don’t know much about the swing and don’t care to understand much about the swing because now they need to find the right type of instructor and hopefully understand how to execute their instruction. 3JACK
|
|
|
Post by dodger on Apr 12, 2011 15:22:59 GMT -5
Richie, I agree with your post and certainly would yield to your knowledge as I have never done the research you have done. I do think that certain players have a feel for the game that transcends mechanics. Sam Snead for example or Moe Norman. Schwarzel may be one of them. Actually, I really liked Baker-Finch's swing when he won the open. Olazabal. Payne Stewart, were a couple other players that had a golf like motion. One factor is likely practice. If I can hit balls twice a week and play once a week I am really lucky. When you hit balls every day I think you can get away with some different mechanics. It is easy to simplify when you are already pretty damn good. I am just not sure that position golf is the answer for all of us.
|
|
|
Post by Richie3Jack on Apr 12, 2011 15:38:47 GMT -5
Richie, I agree with your post and certainly would yield to your knowledge as I have never done the research you have done. I do think that certain players have a feel for the game that transcends mechanics. Sam Snead for example or Moe Norman. My opinion is that their feel for the game trascended instruction. For the most part, Snead, Hogan and Moe all had tremendous mechanics. I think if they had slightly lesser mechanics, they'd still be successful pros, but they wouldn't be known as these great ballstrikers. Hogan is a shining example given that he was a journeyman that fought a hook until his 30's. Generally when I watch the PGA Tour pros on video, I'm not too impressed with their mechanics and alignments as a whole. I generally am impressed with their motion as a whole. I'm impressed with their ability to make compensations and play at such a high level. And I'm very impressed with their ability to take new instruction, even if it's vastly different from the way they've always played, and figure it out. 3JACK
|
|
davidwedzik
Beat up Radials
3Jack Top 50 Instructor
Posts: 26
|
Post by davidwedzik on Apr 12, 2011 15:38:58 GMT -5
The most interesting instructional statement that may create a trend was made by the champ. Charl Schwartzel said his father has been his only teacher. He only gets looked at when he is in SA and does not use video or email to work on his game. He tries to keep it simple. Are we getting too detailed and complex for our own good? The swing takes a second and a half. Putting it into sections or focusing on partial movements is tough learning. Clearly Charl is an athlete. However physically a lot of other players are more impressive size wise. No doubt the S&T guys had to give a major nod to marketing and their instruction does involve a full turn of the right hip, straightening right leg and a left shoulder that goes down in the backswing along with an inward hand path. Brian Manzella taught me to do all this when I had a lesson with him. I felt more over the ball, got my swing bottom more forward and result wise my swing improved . He definitely will teach elements that are included within S&T to those that need it. His point is those movements have been in the game forever. Jackie Burke tells a great story of a guy that carved a beautiful wood carving of a dog. Burke asked how he did and he said he cut out everything that did not look like a dog. Schwarzels Dad looked like he cut out everything that did not look like a golf swing. Good teachers seem to do that. I know Manzella does that, my guess is that the guys from Erie do that too. Imagine how much we could agree on if we decided not to use labels. Good post and I would guess you are correct that Brian does that as much as he can...as do we...I have personally NEVER put someone into a piece that fit the pattern if it was not NEEDED to make them better/more efficient (just as I will vary from it when I need to vary). Also I know that many of the things that have been stated by M&A were not meant exactly as they may have sounded. They both have great respect for a great many teachers and know they have said themselves that much/most/all of this stuff has been around since the beginnings of the game...just hadn't been explained properly. Only thing I think is important to point out is that masses of golfers don't/won't get better if keeping it simple means doing what "feels comfortable" even if it is detrimental to them. For the Charl Schwartzel's of the world this part may work...but the other 99+% will need some guidance to take steps forward. Dave P.S. Love the Burke dog carving story...hadn't heard that one before.
|
|
|
Post by iacas on Apr 12, 2011 17:29:46 GMT -5
The 'restricted arm swing' I'm not quite sure about. I know that I've had issues with my own golf swing in that I fold the right arm at p4 more than 90*. I haven't talked with S&T guys about this, but I'm guessing they don't like that. Generally speaking, no, but only because it will tend to make other things more difficult and/or throw off the sequencing. Your Hat (paraphrased) quote is a good one. Ha ha! Good one. Oh, you weren't joking? 2. Erik, Tiger just jacked his arm up and slightly flattened HIS shoulder turn, and nearly won. Flattened compared to when? "Jacked up" compared to when? 2005-2009? March 5, 2011? Everything I've seen paints a very different story. 4. David, the amount of hype, for both the tripod and the s&t, and how everything else was junk, might have something to do with it. For someone who attempts to promote and hype himself as much as you do, you sure do seem to hate it when others do the same. How about we leave "hype" out of the equation and just talk about the golf swings on their merit alone, not how they're marketed?
|
|
|
Post by michaelfinney on Apr 13, 2011 11:47:59 GMT -5
could someone who teaches stack and tilt please tell me the names of the scientists who mike and andy consulted with other than robert grober....i asked this question on the facebook thing, but got no answer
|
|
davidwedzik
Beat up Radials
3Jack Top 50 Instructor
Posts: 26
|
Post by davidwedzik on Apr 13, 2011 12:22:28 GMT -5
could someone who teaches stack and tilt please tell me the names of the scientists who mike and andy consulted with other than robert grober....i asked this question on the facebook thing, but got no answer Is this type of post what I have seen called a drive by? Anyway...not sure what the question has to do with this thread...but if you asked on the SnT Facebook group (where Mike and Andy hang around quite often) and didn't get an answer I can only assume that they CHOSE not to give you the answer. I will leave this up to them to answer if they choose to do so. FYI - I am familiar with the group of scientists you have been consulting with and have seen/heard nothing earth shattering. All seem to be smart guys with good information that, for the most part, I agree with. Job well done. Dave
|
|
|
Post by Richie3Jack on Apr 13, 2011 12:29:18 GMT -5
I'd like to recommend if we want to make continue to make arguments, we should get some photographic/video evidence going here.
I actually like this thread so far, but I think it would be best if we start showing video/photo evidence so we can continue to progress the argument of the thread. Otherwise, we'll just keep arguing the same thing over.
3JACK
|
|
davidwedzik
Beat up Radials
3Jack Top 50 Instructor
Posts: 26
|
Post by davidwedzik on Apr 13, 2011 12:31:31 GMT -5
I'd like to recommend if we want to make continue to make arguments, we should get some photographic/video evidence going here. I actually like this thread so far, but I think it would be best if we start showing video/photo evidence so we can continue to progress the argument of the thread. Otherwise, we'll just keep arguing the same thing over. 3JACK No disagreement here...that was why, in this case, I asked if this was really even a question for this thread. Thanks, Dave
|
|
joec
'88 Apex Redlines
Posts: 161
|
Post by joec on Apr 13, 2011 12:32:16 GMT -5
i just watched the charl video on the gotham golf blog, which was analyzed by whittaker. i really tlhought he did a great job. he was showing both releases that charl used during the tournament. the cp he cut off, the cf his pivot stalled and he slung the club around.
|
|
|
Post by michaelfinney on Apr 13, 2011 13:36:22 GMT -5
FYI - I am familiar with the group of scientists you have been consulting with and have seen/heard nothing earth shattering. Dave "Nothing earth shattering" is up for debate.
|
|
davidwedzik
Beat up Radials
3Jack Top 50 Instructor
Posts: 26
|
Post by davidwedzik on Apr 13, 2011 14:16:46 GMT -5
FYI - I am familiar with the group of scientists you have been consulting with and have seen/heard nothing earth shattering. Dave "Nothing earth shattering" is up for debate. That's fair :-)
|
|
awkrad
Beat up Radials
Posts: 44
|
Post by awkrad on Apr 13, 2011 14:38:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by kevinshields on Apr 13, 2011 15:24:14 GMT -5
Oh, and S&T in general doesn't teach CP, it teaches CF. You keep saying that, Rich, but no, it doesn't. iacas.org/f/wi_cp_release.jpgiacas.org/f/baddeley_plummer_cp_driver.jpgThe "release" we teach at Golf Evolution is far closer to a "CP release" than anything else, and though we "let" people get a little more CF-ish with the driver, that's relative to the irons. S&T is an inline swing, and we talk just as much about the handle, the clubhead, the arms, etc. staying on the plane after impact as during the backswing. A stock shot draw does not mean "CF." As for Brian's post, you apparently weren't watching the same tournament as everyone else or have very different definitions for several words. Who's everyone else?
|
|
davidwedzik
Beat up Radials
3Jack Top 50 Instructor
Posts: 26
|
Post by davidwedzik on Apr 13, 2011 15:31:40 GMT -5
Just guessing Kevin but I think this is the kind of post Richie was saying he DIDN'T want to see in this thread. Dave
|
|