Proficient Versus Insufficient: A Common Variable?

[copperjeff]

Sean

 

Nice post. Your thoughts are well taken.

 

Absolutely, as you suggest, some golfers are more proficient than others, and thoroughbreds are few and far between.

 

Nonetheless, I believe the swing becomes automatic through proper focus, and the focus should never be on the swing (motion) itself. If a golfer finds him/herself out on course ‘playing golf swing,’ then the focus is obviously wrong. I doubt anyone would argue that statement.

 

In the above regard, I think a major problem with ‘practice’ ranges is that amateur golfers almost universally never approach having proper focus. Very few identify a target, or maintain focus on the target. Conversely, the primary focus is on the golf swing (motion). Worse yet, as you say, a shot-to-shot change in focus on the swing. No way in hell anyone will become proficient with such approaches.

 

I think developing a swing you ‘own’ - making it ‘automatic’ - comes with proper practice - proper focus. Better yet, from simply playing golf with proper focus. Ranges are overrated, if not largely detrimental for learning to play golf proficiently.

 

FR

 

Excellent post.

 

External focus can certainly allow a golfer to score to the best of his or her current ability, which may be far lower than he/she thinks.

 

What happens though when a major flaw in the swing prevents this player from breaking through to new scoring goals? Sometimes the swing needs to be fixed.

 

Some students respond well to external ideas ie throw the club, others do not. A good instructor has the tools to provide the student multiple options.

 

If the only advice anyone ever needed was throw the club, this section of forum wouldn't exsist.

 

When the motion is wrong, it may need to be fixed to meet the individuals goals, that's what the range is for.

[FatReed]

Copper wrote:

 

“If the only advice anyone ever needed was throw the club, this section of forum wouldn't exsist.”

 

***

 

Copper,

 

Just to be clear, that intent was stated as one that has helped ME. Although I am certainly not the first to experience benefit with the intent, it was not presented as a ‘one size fits all’ approach for the masses.

 

Honestly, I believe ‘throwing the club’ is how I process what is actually just ‘swinging the club?’

 

The bigger point was that, as you reiterated, learning motion is proven to be best accomplished through external cues (not internal), which are numerous and individual.

 

As far as ‘major flaws’ in the swing go. . . I believe major flaws in motion are the product of improper focus and/or focus on the motion itself.

 

FR

[copperjeff]

Copper wrote:

 

“If the only advice anyone ever needed was throw the club, this section of forum wouldn't exsist.”

 

***

 

Copper,

 

Just to be clear, that intent was stated as one that has helped ME. Although I am certainly not the first to experience benefit with the intent, it was not presented as a ‘one size fits all’ approach for the masses.

 

Honestly, I believe ‘throwing the club’ is how I process what is actually just ‘swinging the club?’

 

The bigger point was that, as you reiterated, learning motion is proven to be best accomplished through external cues (not internal), which are numerous and individual.

 

As far as ‘major flaws’ in the swing go. . . I believe major flaws in motion are the product of improper focus and/or focus on the motion itself.

 

FR

 

Your bigger point being motion is best learned through external cues is not something we agree on.

 

I said using external cues can allow you to score best at your current ability. But the swing you have will limit that scoring ability.

 

I disagree that internal focus can only lead to major flaws. Personal experience of my own swing,and helping others, along with retellings from many others disprove that. That does not mean that switching to an external focus can't help people... It certainly has, and will continue to do so.

 

Again, people learn in different ways, and interpret things differently. Some people will react better to internal focus, others external when it comes time to improving the motion to the next level.

 

A person that hits a 200 yard driver that slices 50 yards needs a better motion to be able to break par. Can they break 100 without changing the motion and go to only external focus, maybe.

 

Again, what does the golfer want to accomplish. Should be the first question at the start of every new lesson series, and should be followed up on regularly. That will let the teacher know how to procede.

[OrangeGravy]

Copper wrote:

 

"If the only advice anyone ever needed was throw the club, this section of forum wouldn't exsist."

 

***

 

Copper,

 

Just to be clear, that intent was stated as one that has helped ME. Although I am certainly not the first to experience benefit with the intent, it was not presented as a 'one size fits all' approach for the masses.

 

Honestly, I believe 'throwing the club' is how I process what is actually just 'swinging the club?'

 

The bigger point was that, as you reiterated, learning motion is proven to be best accomplished through external cues (not internal), which are numerous and individual.

 

As far as 'major flaws' in the swing go. . . I believe major flaws in motion are the product of improper focus and/or focus on the motion itself.

 

FR

 

Your bigger point being motion is best learned through external cues is not something we agree on.

 

I said using external cues can allow you to score best at your current ability. But the swing you have will limit that scoring ability.

 

I disagree that internal focus can only lead to major flaws. Personal experience of my own swing,and helping others, along with retellings from many others disprove that. That does not mean that switching to an external focus can't help people... It certainly has, and will continue to do so.

 

Again, people learn in different ways, and interpret things differently. Some people will react better to internal focus, others external when it comes time to improving the motion to the next level.

 

A person that hits a 200 yard driver that slices 50 yards needs a better motion to be able to break par. Can they break 100 without changing the motion and go to only external focus, maybe.

 

Again, what does the golfer want to accomplish. Should be the first question at the start of every new lesson series, and should be followed up on regularly. That will let the teacher know how to procede.

 

 

Maybe initially external focus will allow a person to maximize their natural potential and from there, any flaws that need to be addressed will be best dealt with depending on how that person learns? The naturally physically gifted may only ever need minor tweaks like a grip alteration or setup adjustment along the way and the less naturally gifted may need a a complete rebuild in order to improve. For myself, if I just play with only thinking about where I want the ball to go and how I want it to get there and remove any other golf related stuff, I play well. If I let the other analytical thinking in, I play much worse. Fortunately for me, I just have to get in the routine of playing more and my focus will naturally shift in the right direction as I play more. When I play less, I'm much too focused on playing well vs just being focused on a single shot and swing thoughts or positions get involved.

 

Some of these threads talking about wrist angles, internal/external rotation of right shoulder etc... , make me wonder how anyone could play golf with all of that in their head? I could never even take the club back if any of that was in my head. I recognize some people need to break things down to that level, but I would be vapor locked on the first tee.

[glk]

When playing if one has to think about anything then let it be an external swing cue - just one. Frankly, when playing thinking about lots of things beside body parts gets in the way of playing your best - expectation of score, before and during the round, where not to hit it, the last poor shot which could have been 3 holes previous, the "importance" of the next shot, . . .

Many ways the brain can sabotage a good round of golf. And given the nature of the game, lots of time between shots for the brain to get in the way.

 

I've read articles on external vs internal and don't see a universal agreement that solely external is the way to go. To me, skill development can be learned with a combination.

 

For example, internal can really help get what those wrist and forearms should be doing during release - especially when done in slo mo and in just very short swings (like club parallel to club parallel).

External can help blend the motion together or be used to further refine a newly learned or being learned body motion. I think the more skilled a person is the more the balance of technique moves to external cues.

 

Take club throwing as an example. Club throwing can help with sequencing and path. It can but doesn't guarantee it will. Can easily throw a club with poor mechanics.

What it doesn't do is help with skills needed to control the club face and low point. One isn't hitting a ball or even hitting the ground. Classic example is Rory's iron throw into the lake - if you stop the video when the club is at it's low point you can see that the face is pointing dead right. But it's a great motion. In that regards, it's similar to the practice swing without a ball. I like grip throws or rope swings - throwing grips you can learn to throw into the ground in front of where the ball is - less in front for iron swing more down the line for driver - and ropes train more than just the motion but teach soft arms and using the body more than the arms early in the motion. Plus you don't have to chase down thrown club, lol.

 

The downside of internal being getting too focused on the body part and losing site of the big picture of the motion - therefore the short swings and slo speed when doing such skill building drills and then using external focus to blend the motion being trained. So i can do some slow swings conscience of my trail elbow movement and arm straightening and then when swinging faster think quiver pull or drag the club head along an imaginary wall behind me when doing full swings or go with the feel of the club head coming from behind my body. First use internal in slo mo to give my brain the sense of what I want to happen then use a cue that supports it without thinking about the elbow.

 

I believe that slo mo can be a very big factor in improvement - not talking just ultra slo mo but things like half speed, third, . . . Can use it for full swings or partial. External cues or internal. Hitting balls or not. I think it gets underutilized by golfers who think full swings on the range is the main way to learning/improving.

[FatReed]

When playing if one has to think about anything then let it be an external swing cue - just one. Frankly, when playing thinking about lots of things beside body parts gets in the way of playing your best - expectation of score, before and during the round, where not to hit it, the last poor shot which could have been 3 holes previous, the "importance" of the next shot, . . .

Many ways the brain can sabotage a good round of golf. And given the nature of the game, lots of time between shots for the brain to get in the way.

 

I've read articles on external vs internal and don't see a universal agreement that solely external is the way to go. To me, skill development can be learned with a combination.

 

For example, internal can really help get what those wrist and forearms should be doing during release - especially when done in slo mo and in just very short swings (like club parallel to club parallel).

External can help blend the motion together or be used to further refine a newly learned or being learned body motion. I think the more skilled a person is the more the balance of technique moves to external cues.

 

Take club throwing as an example. Club throwing can help with sequencing and path. It can but doesn't guarantee it will. Can easily throw a club with poor mechanics.

What it doesn't do is help with skills needed to control the club face and low point. One isn't hitting a ball or even hitting the ground. Classic example is Rory's iron throw into the lake - if you stop the video when the club is at it's low point you can see that the face is pointing dead right. But it's a great motion. In that regards, it's similar to the practice swing without a ball. I like grip throws or rope swings - throwing grips you can learn to throw into the ground in front of where the ball is - less in front for iron swing more down the line for driver - and ropes train more than just the motion but teach soft arms and using the body more than the arms early in the motion. Plus you don't have to chase down thrown club, lol.

 

The downside of internal being getting too focused on the body part and losing site of the big picture of the motion - therefore the short swings and slo speed when doing such skill building drills and then using external focus to blend the motion being trained. So i can do some slow swings conscience of my trail elbow movement and arm straightening and then when swinging faster think quiver pull or drag the club head along an imaginary wall behind me when doing full swings or go with the feel of the club head coming from behind my body. First use internal in slo mo to give my brain the sense of what I want to happen then use a cue that supports it without thinking about the elbow.

 

I believe that slo mo can be a very big factor in improvement - not talking just ultra slo mo but things like half speed, third, . . . Can use it for full swings or partial. External cues or internal. Hitting balls or not. I think it gets underutilized by golfers who think full swings on the range is the main way to learning/improving.

 

glk

 

Excellent post.

 

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

 

FR

[RBImGuy]

I suggest that there IS a common 'variable,' differentiating proficient from insufficient. There must be, as it would be otherwise somewhat impossible for the human machine to produce both remarkably consistent proficiencies versus similarly consistent insufficiencies in motion.

 

 

 

proficient

 

[media=]

[/media]

[FatReed]

I suggest that there IS a common 'variable,' differentiating proficient from insufficient. There must be, as it would be otherwise somewhat impossible for the human machine to produce both remarkably consistent proficiencies versus similarly consistent insufficiencies in motion.

 

 

 

proficient

 

[media=]

[/media]

 

There are few I’ve ever seen and enjoy watch swing a club more than Hans.

 

Incredible rhythm, tempo and balance. . . it’s poertry in motion.

 

Thank you for sharing RBImguy

[WILDTHING]

One other important factor you must take into account even if you are using external cues ,focussed intent (ie.swinging to a target ) . That your intent objective is achievable.

 

You can picture your swing and have all the correct external cues and 'intent' mindset but if its not a feasible objective your subsconscious is going to be filled with a nagging doubt (fear factor kicks in). So always have your focussed intent on something that you can safely achieve.

[FatReed]

One other important factor you must take into account even if you are using external cues ,focussed intent (ie.swinging to a target ) . That your intent objective is achievable.

 

You can picture your swing and have all the correct external cues and 'intent' mindset but if its not a feasible objective your subsconscious is going to be filled with a nagging doubt (fear factor kicks in). So always have your focussed intent on something that you can safely achieve.

 

Wildthing

 

Your point is well taken, and I believe relates to having realistic expectations.

 

Stables are full of horses, very few of which are thoroughbreds. . . is there any sport other than golf that you know of where amateurs and enthusiasts alike gauge themselves so readily and directly to the thoroughbreds of the sport?

 

Nobody aspires for mediocrity, and everybody wants to improve . . . but things must be tempered, as you suggest, by realistic expectations.

 

FR

 

 

 

[cleatis]

Three targets. Club, ball and destination. To me the club head, ball and destination are all lined up. The club swings exactly away from that alignment and back down the same path. If you cannot see the club and ball lined up to the target, don’t even bother to try to hit it.

[Silky]

Three targets. Club, ball and destination. To me the club head, ball and destination are all lined up. The club swings exactly away from that alignment and back down the same path. If you cannot see the club and ball lined up to the target, don’t even bother to try to hit it.

 

That is part of the concept of the D Plane. The club head velocity vector and the club face normal vector at impact define the D Plane. For my swing right now the focus has been to flail powerfully and send the club head to the "destination" somewhere underground below the pin for irons. The control of the club face normal vector at impact for me varies from day to day, like today I tend to spill right, so more rotation of the pivot and more supination of the lead hand. :) ...... Correct knowledge, though is not necessary in golf, but is never harmful.

[Ghost of Snead]

I suggest that there IS a common 'variable,' differentiating proficient from insufficient. There must be, as it would be otherwise somewhat impossible for the human machine to produce both remarkably consistent proficiencies versus similarly consistent insufficiencies in motion.

 

 

 

proficient

 

[media=]

[/media]

 

Looks like the dynamic loft on that swing might be higher than the actual loft of the club.

 

Might be insufficient.

[Ouimet's Ghost]

Looks like the dynamic loft on that swing might be higher than the actual loft of the club.

Might be insufficient.

 

"Looks like"..."might be higher"..."might be insufficient". Is there a point under the blanket of uncertainty?