Jump to content
2024 Houston Open WITB Photos ×

Don't Bump


Recommended Posts

 

 

Their marketing style is that we have information you don’t..and we aren’t giving you any how to’s without $. Which is absolutely their right..they paid for the equipment etc.

 

All the information in the world is useless, unless you can effectively communicate it. I never see any before and after’s. That’s why dan, gg, and dana among others are great. The can take pretty much anyone and given enough time they can get them swinging how they want them to.

 

I think they have their own signature swing models. Each of them have a few things they emphasize, you can't mix because they're different swings

 

I won’t speak for anyone else but I definitely don’t teach off a model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 221
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I always find this odd. I agree with most people here that you do lead with the lower body but it's not something you should be trying to do, it should happen naturally, like swing a swing in baseball throwing a football heck even throwing a fisbee. This is something that kind of fubared my swing about 5 years ago started thinking lead with a bump well that caused so many dang problems, especially my lower body completely outracing my arms

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me try to excel things toward the rabbit hole’s greatest depth. . . . end point along the path modern instructors like FWP are traveling.

 

SUPPOSE scientists had perfect equipment and capable of performing perfect science. Many years from now, researchers were able to define every position of the club and human body in 4D; every force applied by the human, outside the human (e.g., gravity), to the human, to the club, to the earth (e.g. ground forces). . . . you get my drift, EVERYTHING!

 

First, the above measurements would be damn near infinite if culminated for a single human, and infinite in variation if culminated for more than one. Nonetheless, scientists somehow manage to obtain ALL the ‘data.’

 

If this proposal sounds like nonsense, it is, but not because it’s seemingly impossible to obtain. . . but because it would be absolutely useless information (infinite minutia) toward LEARNING the golf swing (motion); impossible, as the human simply could not process and apply it. What would be even worse and more impossible - if ‘more impossible’ existed - would be a golf instructor trying to ‘teach’ motion according to the data accumulated. Motion cannot be taught!

 

If you think my example is nonsense because it’s extreme, then I ask you what is the end point for studying golf swing motion? The end point for all the minutia presented and regurgitated by FWP, and the like? As of this moment, are the studies complete and all the data confirmed to be accumulated; all the ‘answers’ known?

 

My point is that, even if everything were known, it would still be useless. In fact, the more information (minutia) the worse, particularly if one believes the information can be applied, and the golf swing (motion) be taught.

 

What the human body accomplishes in terms of complex motion has evolved to be learned through defined objective(s); not through micro-dissecting the motion(s) into components (that may or may not be measured and defined); and not through trying teach motion.

 

In fact, WRXers are largely a living ‘experiment’ proving this fact, but subjects simply do not wish to withdraw from the experiment in futility. Why? Because modern golf instruction would have you believe motion can be taught and/or the objective has shifted from advancing the ball from point A to point B to the golf swing (motion) itself.

 

Motion cannot be taught. It must be learned . . . through a defined and proper objective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me try to excel things toward the rabbit hole’s greatest depth. . . . end point along the path modern instructors like FWP are traveling.

 

SUPPOSE scientists had perfect equipment and capable of performing perfect science. Many years from now, researchers were able to define every position of the club and human body in 4D; every force applied by the human, outside the human (e.g., gravity), to the human, to the club, to the earth (e.g. ground forces). . . . you get my drift, EVERYTHING!

 

First, the above measurements would be damn near infinite if culminated for a single human, and infinite in variation if culminated for more than one. Nonetheless, scientists somehow manage to obtain ALL the ‘data.’

 

If this proposal sounds like nonsense, it is, but not because it’s seemingly impossible to obtain. . . but because it would be absolutely useless information (infinite minutia) toward LEARNING the golf swing (motion); impossible, as the human simply could not process and apply it. What would be even worse and more impossible - if ‘more impossible’ existed - would be a golf instructor trying to ‘teach’ motion according to the data accumulated. Motion cannot be taught!

 

If you think my example is nonsense because it’s extreme, then I ask you what is the end point for studying golf swing motion? The end point for all the minutia presented and regurgitated by FWP, and the like? As of this moment, are the studies complete and all the data confirmed to be accumulated; all the ‘answers’ known?

 

My point is that, even if everything were known, it would still be useless. In fact, the more information (minutia) the worse, particularly if one believes the information can be applied, and the golf swing (motion) be taught.

 

What the human body accomplishes in terms of complex motion has evolved to be learned through defined objective(s); not through micro-dissecting the motion(s) into components (that may or may not be measured and defined); and not through trying teach motion.

 

In fact, WRXers are largely a living ‘experiment’ proving this fact, but subjects simply do not wish to withdraw from the experiment in futility. Why? Because modern golf instruction would have you believe motion can be taught and/or the objective has shifted from advancing the ball from point A to point B to the golf swing (motion) itself.

 

Motion cannot be taught. It must be learned . . . through a defined and proper objective.

 

okay it's cold and rainy outside so I'll bite. How do you propose one learn said motion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me try to excel things toward the rabbit hole’s greatest depth. . . . end point along the path modern instructors like FWP are traveling.

 

SUPPOSE scientists had perfect equipment and capable of performing perfect science. Many years from now, researchers were able to define every position of the club and human body in 4D; every force applied by the human, outside the human (e.g., gravity), to the human, to the club, to the earth (e.g. ground forces). . . . you get my drift, EVERYTHING!

 

First, the above measurements would be damn near infinite if culminated for a single human, and infinite in variation if culminated for more than one. Nonetheless, scientists somehow manage to obtain ALL the ‘data.’

 

If this proposal sounds like nonsense, it is, but not because it’s seemingly impossible to obtain. . . but because it would be absolutely useless information (infinite minutia) toward LEARNING the golf swing (motion); impossible, as the human simply could not process and apply it. What would be even worse and more impossible - if ‘more impossible’ existed - would be a golf instructor trying to ‘teach’ motion according to the data accumulated. Motion cannot be taught!

 

If you think my example is nonsense because it’s extreme, then I ask you what is the end point for studying golf swing motion? The end point for all the minutia presented and regurgitated by FWP, and the like? As of this moment, are the studies complete and all the data confirmed to be accumulated; all the ‘answers’ known?

 

My point is that, even if everything were known, it would still be useless. In fact, the more information (minutia) the worse, particularly if one believes the information can be applied, and the golf swing (motion) be taught.

 

What the human body accomplishes in terms of complex motion has evolved to be learned through defined objective(s); not through micro-dissecting the motion(s) into components (that may or may not be measured and defined); and not through trying teach motion.

 

In fact, WRXers are largely a living ‘experiment’ proving this fact, but subjects simply do not wish to withdraw from the experiment in futility. Why? Because modern golf instruction would have you believe motion can be taught and/or the objective has shifted from advancing the ball from point A to point B to the golf swing (motion) itself.

 

Motion cannot be taught. It must be learned . . . through a defined and proper objective.

 

okay it's cold and rainy outside so I'll bite. How do you propose one learn said motion?

 

Through awareness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me try to excel things toward the rabbit hole’s greatest depth. . . . end point along the path modern instructors like FWP are traveling.

 

SUPPOSE scientists had perfect equipment and capable of performing perfect science. Many years from now, researchers were able to define every position of the club and human body in 4D; every force applied by the human, outside the human (e.g., gravity), to the human, to the club, to the earth (e.g. ground forces). . . . you get my drift, EVERYTHING!

 

First, the above measurements would be damn near infinite if culminated for a single human, and infinite in variation if culminated for more than one. Nonetheless, scientists somehow manage to obtain ALL the ‘data.’

 

If this proposal sounds like nonsense, it is, but not because it’s seemingly impossible to obtain. . . but because it would be absolutely useless information (infinite minutia) toward LEARNING the golf swing (motion); impossible, as the human simply could not process and apply it. What would be even worse and more impossible - if ‘more impossible’ existed - would be a golf instructor trying to ‘teach’ motion according to the data accumulated. Motion cannot be taught!

 

If you think my example is nonsense because it’s extreme, then I ask you what is the end point for studying golf swing motion? The end point for all the minutia presented and regurgitated by FWP, and the like? As of this moment, are the studies complete and all the data confirmed to be accumulated; all the ‘answers’ known?

 

My point is that, even if everything were known, it would still be useless. In fact, the more information (minutia) the worse, particularly if one believes the information can be applied, and the golf swing (motion) be taught.

 

What the human body accomplishes in terms of complex motion has evolved to be learned through defined objective(s); not through micro-dissecting the motion(s) into components (that may or may not be measured and defined); and not through trying teach motion.

 

In fact, WRXers are largely a living ‘experiment’ proving this fact, but subjects simply do not wish to withdraw from the experiment in futility. Why? Because modern golf instruction would have you believe motion can be taught and/or the objective has shifted from advancing the ball from point A to point B to the golf swing (motion) itself.

 

Motion cannot be taught. It must be learned . . . through a defined and proper objective.

 

Good one FatReed.

 

/thread

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me try to excel things toward the rabbit hole’s greatest depth. . . . end point along the path modern instructors like FWP are traveling.

 

SUPPOSE scientists had perfect equipment and capable of performing perfect science. Many years from now, researchers were able to define every position of the club and human body in 4D; every force applied by the human, outside the human (e.g., gravity), to the human, to the club, to the earth (e.g. ground forces). . . . you get my drift, EVERYTHING!

 

First, the above measurements would be damn near infinite if culminated for a single human, and infinite in variation if culminated for more than one. Nonetheless, scientists somehow manage to obtain ALL the ‘data.’

 

If this proposal sounds like nonsense, it is, but not because it’s seemingly impossible to obtain. . . but because it would be absolutely useless information (infinite minutia) toward LEARNING the golf swing (motion); impossible, as the human simply could not process and apply it. What would be even worse and more impossible - if ‘more impossible’ existed - would be a golf instructor trying to ‘teach’ motion according to the data accumulated. Motion cannot be taught!

 

If you think my example is nonsense because it’s extreme, then I ask you what is the end point for studying golf swing motion? The end point for all the minutia presented and regurgitated by FWP, and the like? As of this moment, are the studies complete and all the data confirmed to be accumulated; all the ‘answers’ known?

 

My point is that, even if everything were known, it would still be useless. In fact, the more information (minutia) the worse, particularly if one believes the information can be applied, and the golf swing (motion) be taught.

 

What the human body accomplishes in terms of complex motion has evolved to be learned through defined objective(s); not through micro-dissecting the motion(s) into components (that may or may not be measured and defined); and not through trying teach motion.

 

In fact, WRXers are largely a living ‘experiment’ proving this fact, but subjects simply do not wish to withdraw from the experiment in futility. Why? Because modern golf instruction would have you believe motion can be taught and/or the objective has shifted from advancing the ball from point A to point B to the golf swing (motion) itself.

 

Motion cannot be taught. It must be learned . . . through a defined and proper objective.

 

I used to be on sitd, this sounds like the same stuff those hacks on there used to say. They like you, don’t understand how instructors use data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jut111 wrote:

 

“okay it's cold and rainy outside so I'll bite. How do you propose one learn said motion?”

 

*****

 

Just as every golfer is different, the answer to your question will also vary.

 

The most proficient GOLFERS typically originate from PLAYING and LEARNING the game at a YOUNG age. This is not unlike any other sport. This represents only one population of golfers and, for them, the key is simply PLAYING golf, or golf-related games (chipping contests in backyard with friends, etc). Young golfers, unless prompted otherwise, do not think about the golf swing (motion). Their OBJECTIVE is, most often, to simply advance a ball from point A to point B. Through this objective, they develop their motion. . . not vice versa.

 

Do all golfers who play the game in their youth become proficient, or equally proficient in the process? Is it not possible to become a proficient golfer if one does not play the game his/her youth? The answer is ‘no’ to both questions. Do all young boys who play baseball in their youth go on to play MLB? Is a human who has never been exposed to a baseball more likely to develop a good throwing motion during their youth, or as an adult? Motion (motor mapping) is most easily/proficiently developed in youth, but I do not wish to digress too far down this well-established path.

 

What about the golfer who never developed the ability to play golf proficiently in their youth, or the adult who either takes up the game or wishes to become more proficient than he/she had become in earlier stages of their life? How do they become proficient? Despite good intentions, this is the typical population of golfers that gives chase down the rabbit hole.

 

For many, including the vast majority of WXR golfers that have chased furthest down the rabbit hole, the following statement resonates: it is harder to unlearn than it is to learn. It is not just WRX golfers, but nearly all golfers that have pursued modern golf instruction. In each instance, the focus has been – and increasingly so – shifted to the wrong objective. From advancing a ball from point A to point B on the golf course, to the golf swing motion in a hitting bay.

 

The proper objective is to move the ball from point A to point B and, in the process of executing said objective, one LEARNS their most proficient motion. Unfortunately, the motion itself has almost universally become the objective in non-proficient and frustrated golfers. In this population, unlike those in their youth, the first and most difficult objective is to unlearn – reset focus on the proper objective. My apologies to PepsiDuck, but his concurrent thread serves prime example.

 

With regard to modern golf instruction, there needs to be a shift in paradigm. Nearly all golf instruction has become golf ‘swing’ instruction. You cannot teach motion and thus, the focus of modern golf instruction has, as I repeatedly state, slipped into the dark ages through this growing attempt to do so. It is giving golfers chase further and further down the rabbit hole. In my prior post, I carried the current course of instruction to its ideal – and fruitless - end point.

 

What is the best paradigm for golf instruction? As you might expect, I suggest it begins with abandoning focus on trying to teach the golf swing (motion). In this regard, instruction should emphasize and foster focus on the proper objective - moving the ball from point A to point B. In the process, the golfer will develop their most proficient motion – some more proficient than others.

 

How can the golf instructor foster the process? The options are extensive, but include emphasizing external over internal cues, such as visualizing ball flight (external cue) and not body positions (internal cues). . . etc, etc, etc.

 

Honestly, this post could be a book – and has already become a chapter. I realize nobody wants to read posts that are too long on this forum, so I will refrain from expressing further thought at this time. Hopefully, however, I have provided meaningful feedback to the question posed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Motion cannot be taught. It must be learned . . . through a defined and proper objective.

I used to be on sitd, this sounds like the same stuff those hacks on there used to say. They like you, don't understand how instructors use data.

 

Hacks? You mean like the two tour professionals headlining the old site that provided content, like this gem. Might be too confusing for some as it lacks data.

[media=]

[/media]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So using external cues doesn’t count as teaching motion but rather learning it? Color me unimpressed. But not surprised. And the point a to b insight. Tell that to a student on the lesson tee.

 

Sealed with a curse as sharp as a knife.  Doomed is your soul and damned is your life.
Enjoy every sandwich

The first rule of the Dunning-Kruger club is that you don’t know you are a member.   The second rule is that we’re all members from time to time.

"for I think a law that is not just, is not actually a law" ("nam mihi lex esse non videtur, quae justa non fuerit")  Saint Augustine of Hippo

#Kwonified

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jut111 wrote:

 

“okay it's cold and rainy outside so I'll bite. How do you propose one learn said motion?”

 

*****

 

Just as every golfer is different, the answer to your question will also vary.

 

The most proficient GOLFERS typically originate from PLAYING and LEARNING the game at a YOUNG age. This is not unlike any other sport. This represents only one population of golfers and, for them, the key is simply PLAYING golf, or golf-related games (chipping contests in backyard with friends, etc). Young golfers, unless prompted otherwise, do not think about the golf swing (motion). Their OBJECTIVE is, most often, to simply advance a ball from point A to point B. Through this objective, they develop their motion. . . not vice versa.

 

Do all golfers who play the game in their youth become proficient, or equally proficient in the process? Is it not possible to become a proficient golfer if one does not play the game his/her youth? The answer is ‘no’ to both questions. Do all young boys who play baseball in their youth go on to play MLB? Is a human who has never been exposed to a baseball more likely to develop a good throwing motion during their youth, or as an adult? Motion (motor mapping) is most easily/proficiently developed in youth, but I do not wish to digress too far down this well-established path.

 

What about the golfer who never developed the ability to play golf proficiently in their youth, or the adult who either takes up the game or wishes to become more proficient than he/she had become in earlier stages of their life? How do they become proficient? Despite good intentions, this is the typical population of golfers that gives chase down the rabbit hole.

 

For many, including the vast majority of WXR golfers that have chased furthest down the rabbit hole, the following statement resonates: it is harder to unlearn than it is to learn. It is not just WRX golfers, but nearly all golfers that have pursued modern golf instruction. In each instance, the focus has been – and increasingly so – shifted to the wrong objective. From advancing a ball from point A to point B on the golf course, to the golf swing motion in a hitting bay.

 

The proper objective is to move the ball from point A to point B and, in the process of executing said objective, one LEARNS their most proficient motion. Unfortunately, the motion itself has almost universally become the objective in non-proficient and frustrated golfers. In this population, unlike those in their youth, the first and most difficult objective is to unlearn – reset focus on the proper objective. My apologies to PepsiDuck, but his concurrent thread serves prime example.

 

With regard to modern golf instruction, there needs to be a shift in paradigm. Nearly all golf instruction has become golf ‘swing’ instruction. You cannot teach motion and thus, the focus of modern golf instruction has, as I repeatedly state, slipped into the dark ages through this growing attempt to do so. It is giving golfers chase further and further down the rabbit hole. In my prior post, I carried the current course of instruction to its ideal – and fruitless - end point.

 

What is the best paradigm for golf instruction? As you might expect, I suggest it begins with abandoning focus on trying to teach the golf swing (motion). In this regard, instruction should emphasize and foster focus on the proper objective - moving the ball from point A to point B. In the process, the golfer will develop their most proficient motion – some more proficient than others.

 

How can the golf instructor foster the process? The options are extensive, but include emphasizing external over internal cues, such as visualizing ball flight (external cue) and not body positions (internal cues). . . etc, etc, etc.

 

Honestly, this post could be a book – and has already become a chapter. I realize nobody wants to read posts that are too long on this forum, so I will refrain from expressing further thought at this time. Hopefully, however, I have provided meaningful feedback to the question posed.

 

 

 

[media=]

[/media]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thread that was about the "swing motion" was full of clueless hacks. I never saw elk or anyone else on there on that thread.. The video isn't confusing, it's just very shallow. I'm sure it may help some, but there are better ways to explain it.

 

Was speaking more to a site's overall content availability and quality than a topic thread's specific content driven by users, some of whom may be clueless hacks. With respect to the video, it is as shallow as it is deep- shallow enough to post two major wins and a superlative Ryder Cup record, give or take a chapped butt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

A couple things...a)the wrist conditions are craziness.b) they are attempting to verify their beliefs using....AMM 3D. C)if you can make it to the end of the video they bring up his sway number and he is over 6 inches forward at impact and looking at the graph you can clearly see he begins moving laterally before the top of the backswing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The headliners, Burke Jr. and Elkington, primarily drove content, not some of the sub forums dedicated to a variety of topics with contributors like Kopp, Ayers, Como. etc. The Elkington-Rodgers series, and the priceless contributions from Jackie Burke Jr., would not be difficult to conclude drew majority interest and views. Tour tested contributions tend to do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

A couple things...a)the wrist conditions are craziness.b) they are attempting to verify their beliefs using....AMM 3D. C)if you can make it to the end of the video they bring up his sway number and he is over 6 inches forward at impact and looking at the graph you can clearly see he begins moving laterally before the top of the backswing.

 

So, once again, what you are suggesting is that what Martin thinks he is doing - or is attempting to do - isn’t what he is really doing. That, or what he describing is not real or effective.

 

Actually, your exact words were ‘the wrist conditions are craziness,’ meaning either he isn’t doing that, or the intent to do that is ‘craziness.’ Either way, Martin is an exceptional ball striker, so not sure what’s so crazy.

 

Does it matter if his intent/feel does not match ‘data’ regarding what he is actually doing? Does it matter if what he is actually doing doesn’t match the ‘data’ on what others are doing?

 

Look, the reason you so commonly comment on what players think they are doing isn’t what they are actually doing, or others are doing, is because FORCE DEFORMS (Frozen Divots)!!!!

 

Until you understand this, you will never understand the disconnect between feels/intents and observed form. Until golfers understand this, they will continue to struggle trying to find ‘positions’ that, for example, the AMG guys observe and report.

 

You can collect all the data you want, motion cannot be taught. . . FYI I do not know Martin, and do not support his trying to teach what HE does to OTHERS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me try to excel things toward the rabbit hole’s greatest depth. . . . end point along the path modern instructors like FWP are traveling.

 

SUPPOSE scientists had perfect equipment and capable of performing perfect science. Many years from now, researchers were able to define every position of the club and human body in 4D; every force applied by the human, outside the human (e.g., gravity), to the human, to the club, to the earth (e.g. ground forces). . . . you get my drift, EVERYTHING!

 

First, the above measurements would be damn near infinite if culminated for a single human, and infinite in variation if culminated for more than one. Nonetheless, scientists somehow manage to obtain ALL the ‘data.’

 

If this proposal sounds like nonsense, it is, but not because it’s seemingly impossible to obtain. . . but because it would be absolutely useless information (infinite minutia) toward LEARNING the golf swing (motion); impossible, as the human simply could not process and apply it. What would be even worse and more impossible - if ‘more impossible’ existed - would be a golf instructor trying to ‘teach’ motion according to the data accumulated. Motion cannot be taught!

 

If you think my example is nonsense because it’s extreme, then I ask you what is the end point for studying golf swing motion? The end point for all the minutia presented and regurgitated by FWP, and the like? As of this moment, are the studies complete and all the data confirmed to be accumulated; all the ‘answers’ known?

 

My point is that, even if everything were known, it would still be useless. In fact, the more information (minutia) the worse, particularly if one believes the information can be applied, and the golf swing (motion) be taught.

 

What the human body accomplishes in terms of complex motion has evolved to be learned through defined objective(s); not through micro-dissecting the motion(s) into components (that may or may not be measured and defined); and not through trying teach motion.

 

In fact, WRXers are largely a living ‘experiment’ proving this fact, but subjects simply do not wish to withdraw from the experiment in futility. Why? Because modern golf instruction would have you believe motion can be taught and/or the objective has shifted from advancing the ball from point A to point B to the golf swing (motion) itself.

 

Motion cannot be taught. It must be learned . . . through a defined and proper objective.

 

You can focus all you want on advancing the ball from point A to point B, but it ain't happening unless you have the golf swing to get it there.

Ping G425 LST 9° - Tour 65 X

Titleist TSi2 - 15° - Tensei AV Raw Blue 75 X

Callaway Apex Pro - 18° - Aldila NV Green 85 X

Titleist T100/T100S - 4-PW - Project X 6.0
Vokey SM8 50/54/58 - Black 
Taylor Made Spider Mini

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me try to excel things toward the rabbit hole’s greatest depth. . . . end point along the path modern instructors like FWP are traveling.

 

SUPPOSE scientists had perfect equipment and capable of performing perfect science. Many years from now, researchers were able to define every position of the club and human body in 4D; every force applied by the human, outside the human (e.g., gravity), to the human, to the club, to the earth (e.g. ground forces). . . . you get my drift, EVERYTHING!

 

First, the above measurements would be damn near infinite if culminated for a single human, and infinite in variation if culminated for more than one. Nonetheless, scientists somehow manage to obtain ALL the ‘data.’

 

If this proposal sounds like nonsense, it is, but not because it’s seemingly impossible to obtain. . . but because it would be absolutely useless information (infinite minutia) toward LEARNING the golf swing (motion); impossible, as the human simply could not process and apply it. What would be even worse and more impossible - if ‘more impossible’ existed - would be a golf instructor trying to ‘teach’ motion according to the data accumulated. Motion cannot be taught!

 

If you think my example is nonsense because it’s extreme, then I ask you what is the end point for studying golf swing motion? The end point for all the minutia presented and regurgitated by FWP, and the like? As of this moment, are the studies complete and all the data confirmed to be accumulated; all the ‘answers’ known?

 

My point is that, even if everything were known, it would still be useless. In fact, the more information (minutia) the worse, particularly if one believes the information can be applied, and the golf swing (motion) be taught.

 

What the human body accomplishes in terms of complex motion has evolved to be learned through defined objective(s); not through micro-dissecting the motion(s) into components (that may or may not be measured and defined); and not through trying teach motion.

 

In fact, WRXers are largely a living ‘experiment’ proving this fact, but subjects simply do not wish to withdraw from the experiment in futility. Why? Because modern golf instruction would have you believe motion can be taught and/or the objective has shifted from advancing the ball from point A to point B to the golf swing (motion) itself.

 

Motion cannot be taught. It must be learned . . . through a defined and proper objective.

 

You can focus all you want on advancing the ball from point A to point B, but it ain't happening unless you have the golf swing to get it there.

 

Damn straight Ghost! . . . but you don’t learn/develop the golf swing (motion) by focusing on the motion itself.

 

The motion must be learned/developed through defined and proper objective(s) and, again, the motion is neither the proper focus or objective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me try to excel things toward the rabbit hole’s greatest depth. . . . end point along the path modern instructors like FWP are traveling.

 

SUPPOSE scientists had perfect equipment and capable of performing perfect science. Many years from now, researchers were able to define every position of the club and human body in 4D; every force applied by the human, outside the human (e.g., gravity), to the human, to the club, to the earth (e.g. ground forces). . . . you get my drift, EVERYTHING!

 

First, the above measurements would be damn near infinite if culminated for a single human, and infinite in variation if culminated for more than one. Nonetheless, scientists somehow manage to obtain ALL the ‘data.’

 

If this proposal sounds like nonsense, it is, but not because it’s seemingly impossible to obtain. . . but because it would be absolutely useless information (infinite minutia) toward LEARNING the golf swing (motion); impossible, as the human simply could not process and apply it. What would be even worse and more impossible - if ‘more impossible’ existed - would be a golf instructor trying to ‘teach’ motion according to the data accumulated. Motion cannot be taught!

 

If you think my example is nonsense because it’s extreme, then I ask you what is the end point for studying golf swing motion? The end point for all the minutia presented and regurgitated by FWP, and the like? As of this moment, are the studies complete and all the data confirmed to be accumulated; all the ‘answers’ known?

 

My point is that, even if everything were known, it would still be useless. In fact, the more information (minutia) the worse, particularly if one believes the information can be applied, and the golf swing (motion) be taught.

 

What the human body accomplishes in terms of complex motion has evolved to be learned through defined objective(s); not through micro-dissecting the motion(s) into components (that may or may not be measured and defined); and not through trying teach motion.

 

In fact, WRXers are largely a living ‘experiment’ proving this fact, but subjects simply do not wish to withdraw from the experiment in futility. Why? Because modern golf instruction would have you believe motion can be taught and/or the objective has shifted from advancing the ball from point A to point B to the golf swing (motion) itself.

 

Motion cannot be taught. It must be learned . . . through a defined and proper objective.

 

You can focus all you want on advancing the ball from point A to point B, but it ain't happening unless you have the golf swing to get it there.

 

Damn straight Ghost! . . . but you don’t learn/develop the golf swing (motion) by focusing on the motion itself.

 

The motion must be learned/developed through defined and proper objective(s) and, again, the motion is neither the proper focus or objective.

 

Please provide your list of defined and proper objectives.

 

Every golfer already has an pre-established motion which may or may not accomplish the objective of getting the ball from A to B. If the objective is not met, it is always necessary to focus on the parts causing the motion to not function correctly.

Ping G425 LST 9° - Tour 65 X

Titleist TSi2 - 15° - Tensei AV Raw Blue 75 X

Callaway Apex Pro - 18° - Aldila NV Green 85 X

Titleist T100/T100S - 4-PW - Project X 6.0
Vokey SM8 50/54/58 - Black 
Taylor Made Spider Mini

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you watch the video? It's Ellington.

 

Of course it's Elkington. As previously stated Elkington and Burke Jr., in my opinion, drove primary content with their fine respective series, but there was other content in which Elkington did assist in a topic's examination with, for example, Ayers and Kopp, while users like Comeaux, Dariusz, Frozen Divots, and few others, had their own topic threads which did not have ongoing involvement from either of the two headliners, if memory serves. So a wide array of content and involvement starting first and foremost with Elkington and Burke Jr. doing their own tour level work from on high and emanating from there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me try to excel things toward the rabbit hole’s greatest depth. . . . end point along the path modern instructors like FWP are traveling.

 

SUPPOSE scientists had perfect equipment and capable of performing perfect science. Many years from now, researchers were able to define every position of the club and human body in 4D; every force applied by the human, outside the human (e.g., gravity), to the human, to the club, to the earth (e.g. ground forces). . . . you get my drift, EVERYTHING!

 

First, the above measurements would be damn near infinite if culminated for a single human, and infinite in variation if culminated for more than one. Nonetheless, scientists somehow manage to obtain ALL the ‘data.’

 

If this proposal sounds like nonsense, it is, but not because it’s seemingly impossible to obtain. . . but because it would be absolutely useless information (infinite minutia) toward LEARNING the golf swing (motion); impossible, as the human simply could not process and apply it. What would be even worse and more impossible - if ‘more impossible’ existed - would be a golf instructor trying to ‘teach’ motion according to the data accumulated. Motion cannot be taught!

 

If you think my example is nonsense because it’s extreme, then I ask you what is the end point for studying golf swing motion? The end point for all the minutia presented and regurgitated by FWP, and the like? As of this moment, are the studies complete and all the data confirmed to be accumulated; all the ‘answers’ known?

 

My point is that, even if everything were known, it would still be useless. In fact, the more information (minutia) the worse, particularly if one believes the information can be applied, and the golf swing (motion) be taught.

 

What the human body accomplishes in terms of complex motion has evolved to be learned through defined objective(s); not through micro-dissecting the motion(s) into components (that may or may not be measured and defined); and not through trying teach motion.

 

In fact, WRXers are largely a living ‘experiment’ proving this fact, but subjects simply do not wish to withdraw from the experiment in futility. Why? Because modern golf instruction would have you believe motion can be taught and/or the objective has shifted from advancing the ball from point A to point B to the golf swing (motion) itself.

 

Motion cannot be taught. It must be learned . . . through a defined and proper objective.

 

You can focus all you want on advancing the ball from point A to point B, but it ain't happening unless you have the golf swing to get it there.

 

Damn straight Ghost! . . . but you don’t learn/develop the golf swing (motion) by focusing on the motion itself.

 

The motion must be learned/developed through defined and proper objective(s) and, again, the motion is neither the proper focus or objective.

 

Please provide your list of defined and proper objectives.

 

Every golfer already has an pre-established motion which may or may not accomplish the objective of getting the ball from A to B. If the objective is not met, it is always necessary to focus on the parts causing the motion to not function correctly.

 

Maybe, I could try to complement FR's proposition from another angle. Some of the competencies that we acquired since childhood - whistling, snapping fingers, throwing balls, throwing Frisbees, igniting a match, snapping a wet towel, flailing a paper banger, etc, are mechanical actions that may fall under the FR's category of "cannot be taught but must be learned".

 

There are so many ways of moving a golf ball from point A to point B with a golf club, and observing a few of my golfing partners, I sometimes have the notion of "mercy killing" appear in my mind - their golf swings that is, not them in persons. The to unlearn part is a lot more difficult than the to learn.

 

I wish there were clear and distinct signs that you have "learned" in a golf swing akin to the ignition of a match, the loud bang of a paper banger, etc. The teachers can foster the conditions for the student to acquire the learning of a proper and powerful release. I agree that "component-wise" instructions are not the way to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that "component-wise" instructions are not the way to go.

 

While agreeing overall, I believe there may be nuance. Some already having established sequences may choose to tighten the sequence further by working on a particular component's involvement. I do, however, support the idea learning excels when the focus is not overly mechanical, or technical. A good example of this is Gary McCord demonstrating how Mac O'Grady gave an objective to Gary with the goal of reigning in a back swing that was too wide. McCord was told "do what you have to do to not hit the bush, and when you can do that, you're done", no mention of angles, planes, pressures, flexion, extension, or other like terms. Don't have the quote exactly, but the point is made.

 

Tempo Master swing club is an example with a similar objective. No real instructions needed, just do what you have to do to keep slack out of the whip.

 

When I help friends I don't say "do this". I say "what would you have to do in order to accomplish this" which allows discovery on their time, not mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please provide your list of defined and proper objectives.

 

Here's one from a list I've compiled, and I have boatloads of them.

 

What would one have to do in order to throw a club, like Jackie Burke Jr. fondly suggests, while having the body's weight go down into the shoes, as directed by Joe Norwood, instead of what usually happens-weight coming up out of the shoes, away from the ground. The rest of the list is a closely guarded secret. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CoiledUp

 

As to not appear too rigid or one dimensional, I am going to acquiesce a bit in response to your statement regarding those that have an ‘established’ (efficient and repeatable) motion. . . which 90+% of golfers do not. Conversely, the 10% that do have an established motion, all learned their motion through proper focus on proper objective(s) - not through focus on the motion.

 

It should be noted that even when instructors work with the most proficient players having an established motion (and work on their motion), it seems the two most common comments are: (1) instructor ‘x’ helped player ‘y’ by NOT tinkering too much with the player’s natural (established) motion; Butch Harmon is reported to be notorious for this. (2) player ‘x’ wanted to get BETTER and, instead, got worse through trying to make ‘swing (motion) changes.’ In the latter regard, Lydia Ko and Luke Donald come straight to the top of my head, but the list is extensive.

 

In Lydia’s regard, as one example, people can say Leadbetter ruined her swing. First, people give instructors too much credit for the success and failure ‘their players’ achieve - at least with regard to ‘swing instruction.’ Second, I blame Lydia and Leadbetter equally for allowing her focus to shift from the proper (playing golf) to the improper (golf swing motion) objective. Next thing you know, Lydia is playing golf swing out on course, loses confidence, fires caddy, switches instructors, changes clubs, fires caddy again . . . you know the current state of the matter.

 

Long story short, the essential, which very few golfers ever achieve: the golfer must learn his/her motion through proper objective, which does not entail focusing on the motion. Toward this end, Lydia - like the WRX masses - needs to come full circle and find proper focus on proper objective again. She has given chase deep down the rabbit hole.

 

Although I have acquiesced a bit to your statements, I do so with significant hesitancy, as I believe focusing on the motion is rarely ever the most effective approach. . . certainly, NEVER in players who have not already ‘established’ their own motion.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree FatReed- don't throw the baby out with the bath water by changing the natural motion if there is nuanced sequence tightening involved. A major league pitcher for example, who learned to throw as a kid, may change their stride length off the mound a little to tinker without significantly changing their overall motion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Although I have acquiesced a bit to your statements, I do so with significant hesitancy, as I believe focusing on the motion is rarely ever the most effective approach. . . certainly, NEVER in players who have not already ‘established’ their own motion.

 

I think there is a lot of truth in this yet there is the issue of how efficient the 'established' motion is and what flaws are inherent in it. I'm thinking the higher handicapper here.

 

Effective learning should be a self managed discovery process which does involve a cognitive element of understanding. Jim Waldron has commented on the largely sub conscious swing map we have and how difficult it is to change the swing without changing that. I'm not claiming this is done solely by cognitive means but if our current map has subconscious elements we need to find a difference which makes the difference.

 

By example I have been working with my coach on better shaft lean at impact. I was looking at Tyler Ferrells book and there was an overhead picture of impact with the following comment;

 

'Most amateurs golfers are surprised when they see impact from overhead. Impact location for the club head is not directly in front of the chest, like at set up. It is actually behind your body, about 20-30 degrees to the right of it.'

 

In the text using the sternum as the point of reference he says 'The arms are slightly behind the body, with the club more behind it and the club face more closed to the shaft than you would imagine.

 

My coach had drawn me a picture showing how the closed club face was square when the hands were forward so this all fitted. I hadn't grasped the body positions needed to achieve this. I was trying to achieve it as an objective but didn't have the map to produce the needed motion.

 

I've only had chance to swing in the garden but it feels very different and I hope to go to the range today and try the motion with the objective of hitting the ball well and straight.

All comments are made from the point of
view of my learning and not a claim
to expertise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I alternate the movement of the hips. First day I slide, second day I bump and third day I rotate. Fourth day I rest. Next 3 days I do the same in reverse order. At the end of the week I work out why I manage to hit good and bad shots using all 3. I believe we are supposed to fall now though like a mule has kicked you at the top of the backswing.

 

Bit stuck as there are only 7 days in the week and I don’t own a mule. Rest day is for checking out you tube golf drills so can’t fit it in then.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Our picks

    • 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Discussion and links to Photos
      Please put any questions or Comments here
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Monday #1
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Monday #2
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Tuesday #1
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Tuesday #2
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Tuesday #3
       
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Thorbjorn Olesen - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Ben Silverman - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Jesse Droemer - SoTX PGA Section POY - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      David Lipsky - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Martin Trainer - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Zac Blair - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Jacob Bridgeman - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Trace Crowe - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Jimmy Walker - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Daniel Berger - WITB(very mini) - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Chesson Hadley - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Callum McNeill - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Rhein Gibson - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Patrick Fishburn - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Peter Malnati - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Raul Pereda - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Gary Woodland WITB (New driver, iron shafts) – 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Padraig Harrington WITB – 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
       
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      Tom Hoge's custom Cameron - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Cameron putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Piretti putters - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Ping putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Kevin Dougherty's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Bettinardi putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Cameron putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Erik Barnes testing an all-black Axis1 putter – 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Tony Finau's new driver shaft – 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
       
       
       
       
       
      • 9 replies
    • 2024 Valspar Championship WITB Photos (Thanks to bvmagic)- Discussion & Links to Photos
      This weeks WITB Pics are from member bvmagic (Brian). Brian's first event for WRX was in 2008 at Bayhill while in college. Thanks so much bv.
       
      Please put your comments or question on this thread. Links to all the threads are below...
       
       
       
       
        • Like
      • 31 replies
    • 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational - Discussion and Links to Photos
      Please put any questions or comments here
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational - Monday #1
      2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational - Monday #2
      2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational - Monday #3
       
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Matt (LFG) Every - WITB - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      Sahith Theegala - WITB - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
       
       
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      New Cameron putters (and new "LD" grip) - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      New Bettinardi MB & CB irons - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      Custom Bettinardi API putter cover - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      Custom Swag API covers - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      New Golf Pride Reverse Taper grips - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
        • Like
      • 15 replies
    • 2024 Cognizant Classic - Discussion and Links to Photos
      Please put any questions or comments here
       
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Cognizant Classic - Monday #1
      2024 Cognizant Classic - Monday #2
      2024 Cognizant Classic - Monday #3
      2024 Cognizant Classic - Monday #4
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Brandt Snedeker - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Max Greyserman - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Eric Cole - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Carl Yuan - WITb - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Russell Henley - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Justin Sun - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Alex Noren - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Shane Lowry - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Taylor Montgomery - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Jake Knapp (KnappTime_ltd) - WITB - - 2024 Cognizant Classic
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      New Super Stoke Pistol Lock 1.0 & 2.0 grips - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      LA Golf new insert putter - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      New Garsen Quad Tour 15 grip - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      New Swag covers - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Jacob Bridgeman's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Bud Cauley's custom Cameron putters - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Ryo Hisatsune's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Chris Kirk - new black Callaway Apex CB irons and a few Odyssey putters - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Alejandro Tosti's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Cognizant Classic
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
        • Like
      • 2 replies
    • 2024 Genesis Invitational - Discussion and Links to Photos
      Please put any questions or comments here
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Monday #1
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Monday #2
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Tuesday #1
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Tuesday #2
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Tuesday #3
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Tuesday #4
       
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Rory McIlroy - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Sepp Straka - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Patrick Rodgers - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Brendon Todd - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Denny McCarthy - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Corey Conners - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Chase Johnson - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tiger Woods - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tommy Fleetwood - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Matt Fitzpatrick - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Si Woo Kim - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Viktor Hovland - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Wyndham Clark - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Cam Davis - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Nick Taylor - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Ben Baller WITB update (New putter, driver, hybrid and shafts) – 2024 Genesis Invitational
       
       
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      New Vortex Golf rangefinder - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      New Fujikura Ventus shaft - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tiger Woods & TaylorMade "Sun Day Red" apparel launch event, product photos – 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tiger Woods Sun Day Red golf shoes - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Aretera shafts - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      New Toulon putters - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tiger Woods' new white "Sun Day Red" golf shoe prototypes – 2024 Genesis Invitational
       
       
       
       
       
      • 22 replies

×
×
  • Create New...