Golf: Is It Art or Science For You

[tannyhoban]

I had lessons starting age 8 through age 12. Never got into technical or mechanics of the swing other than monkey see monkey do. The pro that did the majority of the jr. teaching was fantastic in that he related on an individual basis, he provided fundamentals and just fine tuned what he saw. No magic formulas, just the fundamentals. I become a feel player through those lessons.

Never an equipment junkie back then. At 15 I purchased a set of used Wilson Staff X31 3-P and a Ping Ayd putter. My dad and I split a set of Wilson 1200 woods, often I carried only a 4 wood. No sand wedge. And I played golf. Rarely on the range. I just played. 36 holes a day many days, learning shots from the retirees and amateurs I played with. Many different methods but nearly all were good to very, very good golfers. Hitting draws, fades, low runners, knockdowns, pitches and lobs. I learned by watching all of them. And I did practice putting. Long putts short putts, putting contests til after dark.

Learning the art of the game.

Fast forward past my teens and into my late twenties I started refinishing woods and subsequenty building my own sets, getting more technical as i went along. Nowadays its all about aoa, ball speed, launch angle, spin and descent. What clubhead, what shaft combo will optimize the numbers. I spent a fair amount of last winter on an indoor Sky Trak setup of my buddy's. I struggle hitting indoors, so it took awhile to get accustomed. Learned some things from it, but I didn't feel more confident going into spring. Hitting indoors didn't help me. Seeing projected flight on a monitor did not register for me. I need to see ball flight outdoors to understand it. This year I stumbled a lot by being too technically concerned.

So I have been on the science side, dipping my toes in for quite some time.

And I'm going back to the art side, to the playing of golf. I have a good setup for the bag for in 2020 and the only thing I want to think about is where and when I am playing.

I am definitely better off looking at the game as art.

How about you?

[tannyhoban]

So apparently a certain primate is a banned word. How novel.

[Loki]

Playing golf is art, learning to play golf is science, bit can be art also.

[Schnee]

M-o-n-k-e-y is banned, wtf?

[SNIPERBBB]

To do art you have to bare bones grasp of the science. You have to find the balance.

[tannyhoban]

If i learned anything from my long winded post it is M-O-N-K-E-Y is forbidden on golfwrx.???

[tannyhoban]

Mods just delete this discussion. I wanted it in general golf for a reason.

[Sean2]

I am confused for sure...

But getting to your question, I see it more as an art. If you watch golf on TV though, it's about commercials.

[tannyhoban]

True. Nothing but the marketing. What I was getting at is this. I play golf better when it's intuitive and not analytical.

All the measuring and sky trak info led me to adjustments that were detrimental.

They don't translate for me.

If I stick to the fundamentals and not worry about the numbers I play freer. I get brain locked overthinking once numbers get involved.

For me it's more art then science. Some folks do better using analytics.

Thats all.

[MadGolfer76]

Golf is a volunteer cluster-fuck.

[tannyhoban]

I like that. And you could insert a certain primate there. It would still show ******. (Or maybe you did?)

??

[aggiegolfer21]

I like to study the geometry of the golf swing so I am definitely more the science side. Helped me quite a bit. I was okay as a feel player (9 handicap) but after studying and understanding the more intricate parts of the golf swing I'm now around scratch.

[baudi]

golf is a craft. It requires craftsmanship in all its facets.

[ballpilot]

Golf is a religion and the parishioners are Mr. Art, and Mrs. Science.

[Moo]

Both. The more of the science/physics you know about golf, the more you can elevate your game to art.

Art is much more fun.

 

[RainShadow]

Playing is mostly art, practice is 60% art and 40% science for me.

I probably think "how" instead or "do" more than I should while on the course.

 

[Lefthook]

I don’t see the two as opposites. Art usually requires a battery of technical skills.

[Man_O_War]

( a good golf swing) must be admired as Art but studied as a Science.

[Barfolomew]

Well **** I see golf as ******* art. ****** people see golf as science but ****** makes sense since golf has ****** changed a lot over last decade

[juststeve]

Golf is a learned skill. Like any motion the motions involved in the golf swing can be analyzed using classical mechanics but an understanding of those mechanics hasn't much to do with playing golf.

 

Steve

[Soloman1]

Neither. It's voodoo . . .

[PutterKilledTheDream]

I could sling a lefty all day long until I was 30 with feel. Once I incorporated a lil science in..... a bit more control.

But it’s all a canvas once you’re on the tee box. The D (bag) plane COM bs goes right out the window once that Nassau is in effect....

[hoselpalooza]

both. golf rewards good imagination and creativity, attributes which are frequently likened with art though could be equally important to scientific discovery. the essence of science is to come up with an idea, test it, pay attention, and learn something -- a lot like sorting out how to execute a new shot or read a putt, for example. i think the best approach to golf -- at least for me -- is to marry the two together. for example, i like to find a balance between mechanics and feel, video analysis or mirror work and paying attention to shot quality and ball flight, and so forth.

p.s. i saw analytics mentioned above. i think a lot of current analytics are garbage because they fail to consider appropriate context, so i don't lend much credence to things like strokes gained and what % of putts should be made from certain distances, for example. skill of player? slope and speed of putt? quality of putting surface? all of these things and more have a huge impact on performance so i don't bother with most of these. even carry distance can be deceiving because one person's 7-iron could very well be another person's 5-iron. just my $0.02.

[Zitlow]

Form follows function.

[MountainGoat]

Science for analysis; art for performance.