AMG Driver Video

[MonteScheinblum]

2 minutes ago, Albatross Dreamer said:

Or even when one person says 3+1=4 and the other is saying 2+2=4. They might be approaching it from different ways, but the end result is the same (which we all hope for in golf). You'd think people would understand that humans are complex and need different things to succeed but 🤷‍♂️

Yes

[KD1]

24 minutes ago, MPStrat said:

My replies are benign and never personal

 

[johnrobison]

38 minutes ago, MPStrat said:

This is the same “everyone sit in their chairs and be quiet while the teacher is talking” brown nosing that has actually gotten a lot better over the last half a year or so but still exists. 

Better, only because very few instructors have the patience to go back and forth with people who now far less than them, have zero experience teaching, and don't actually have a practical understanding of where to start when trying to help someone improve. It's only "better" because so many of them left.

[MPStrat]

11 minutes ago, johnrobison said:

Better, only because very few instructors have the patience to go back and forth with people who now far less than them, have zero experience teaching, and don't actually have a practical understanding of where to start when trying to help someone improve. It's only "better" because so many of them left.

I can tell you exactly why some have left. But you wouldn’t believe me.

[Rdailey9108]

I mean didn't Dan C stop posting because he was tired of people constantly attacking him. I mean it's clear as day in his threads like the trail arm straightening. 

[CasualLie]

What I find incredible is how many instructors are still here posting regularly when they have to endure the criticism which offers no reasoned alternative point of view.  Anyone can post endlessly "that doesn't work", "I disagree", "is not for everyone", blah, blah, blah...I see very few actually debate from their own platform, own theory, and/or put their own student book on the line.

 

Kudos to the  instructors still sticking it out.  Although, I guess you do need the crackpots taking shots; have to keep the eyeballs returning.

[Hawkeye77]

2 hours ago, MPStrat said:

This is the same “everyone sit in their chairs and be quiet while the teacher is talking” brown nosing that has actually gotten a lot better over the last half a year or so but still exists. 

 

And there we go again.  Nothing "brown nosing" about complimenting a friend, which Monte is.  Move along please.

[Soloman1]

2 minutes ago, CasualLie said:

What I find incredible is how many instructors are still here posting regularly when they have to endure the criticism which offers no reasoned alternative point of view.  Anyone can post endlessly "that doesn't work", "I disagree", "is not for everyone", blah, blah, blah...I see very few actually debate from their own platform, own theory, and/or put their own student book on the line.

 

Kudos to the  instructors still sticking it out.  Although, I guess you do need the crackpots taking shots; have to keep the eyeballs returning.

 

You can’t hear a good idea if you aren’t listening.

 

As in any trade or profession, there are those who don’t belong, those who are sincere in their work, those who are continuously learning and trying to learn, some who don’t have the desire, work ethic and sometimes ability to understand some things.

 

Some don’t have the armor to withstand all of the darts thrown or passive-aggressive stuff.

 

In the end, discussion is better than argument. It’s a discussion board, not an argument board.

 

I think high-value people are those who can change their mind if presented with evidence and data that validates an idea. Many don’t have the information, or the depth of information, but are stubborn in an unfounded belief. A dogma.

 

Golf is messy and so are people. Absolutes are few.

[jonsnow]

A benign tumor is still a tumor.

[golf-RN]

[virtuoso]

5 hours ago, Soloman1 said:

I think high-value people are those who can change their mind if presented with evidence and data that validates an idea. Many don’t have the information, or the depth of information, but are stubborn in an unfounded belief. A dogma.

I agree with this statement at face value, but having seen a boatload of swing theories and gimmicks come and go in the last 30 years, I’m skeptical of new ideas in the golf instruction industry. The evidence and data that validates new ideas are actually rarely presented. Anecdote is presented a lot, ie, tour player tries new teacher/idea/method and wins tournament. Said tour player is usually not doing that a year later. I think there is some virtue in discernment and steadfast loyalty to first principles that have been proven over the course of long periods of time. Sometimes you will be accused of being closed minded—certainly by those who are trying to make a living selling those new ideas.

 

Soloman, can you give me an example of dogma in golf instruction that people are being stubborn about in the face of new evidence, just so I know what you mean specifically? Maybe I’m misunderstanding what you mean?

Edited September 2, 2023 by virtuoso

[MonteScheinblum]

35 minutes ago, virtuoso said:

I agree with this statement at face value, but having seen a boatload of swing theories and gimmicks come and go in the last 30 years, I’m skeptical of new ideas in the golf instruction industry. The evidence and data that validates new ideas are actually rarely presented. Anecdote is presented a lot, ie, tour player tries new teacher/idea/method and wins tournament. Said tour player is usually not doing that a year later. I think there is some virtue in discernment and steadfast loyalty to first principles that have been proven over the course of long periods of time. Sometimes you will be accused of being closed minded—certainly by those who are trying to make a living selling those new ideas.

 

Soloman, can you give me an example of dogma in golf instruction that people are being stubborn about in the face of new evidence, just so I know what you mean specifically? Maybe I’m misunderstanding what you mean?

When Como asked me to do a presentation at the open forum this year on this subject, I came up with 34 in 2 minutes.  He only let me do 3.🤪

Edited September 2, 2023 by MonteScheinblum

[Nard_S]

1 hour ago, virtuoso said:

The evidence and data that validates new ideas are actually rarely presented.

Not true. 

[Soloman1]

6 hours ago, virtuoso said:

I agree with this statement at face value, but having seen a boatload of swing theories and gimmicks come and go in the last 30 years, I’m skeptical of new ideas in the golf instruction industry. The evidence and data that validates new ideas are actually rarely presented. Anecdote is presented a lot, ie, tour player tries new teacher/idea/method and wins tournament. Said tour player is usually not doing that a year later. I think there is some virtue in discernment and steadfast loyalty to first principles that have been proven over the course of long periods of time. Sometimes you will be accused of being closed minded—certainly by those who are trying to make a living selling those new ideas.

 

Soloman, can you give me an example of dogma in golf instruction that people are being stubborn about in the face of new evidence, just so I know what you mean specifically? Maybe I’m misunderstanding what you mean?

 

I agree and would say social media is rocket fuel for some of it. Chasing views with bold letters like “Gain 40 Yards Instantly!”

 

The recreational golfer is just a subset of people with some searching for the meaning of life or the secret of golf. It’s just human nature and the magnificence of golf - what works today can be gone tomorrow, what works for him won’t work for her.

 

When a teacher says he has to give a lesson, there’s a little voice inside saying, “I have to go fix a slice…” 🙂

 

I agree with you about principles proven by experience. Let’s talk about experience a little.

 

Experience makes a player better and an instructor better. - building a repertoire of shots for the player and a repertoire of diagnoses and fixes, plus different ways to explain it so it connects with the player.

 

There are some instructors who say that have 20 years experience, but they’ve been using what they learned the first year in the business and recycling it for 20 years. They have one year, not 20.

 

It’s like the guy who says he’s played guitar for 20 years, but knows three songs and five chords.

 

On the other end, I was with a world-class teacher when he had a collegiate player with a helicopter mother. She was amazed that her son was fixed in five minutes and said that to me. I told her it wasn’t five minutes, it took 20 years to know how to fix it in five minutes.

 

An example of dogma might be everyone has to tuck the trail elbow. For some swings, if they’re tucked, they’re f@%#ed. 😉

 

And players have some silly dogma too.

 

”Sure, he coached six years in the NFL and was nominated for the NFL Hall of Fame, but I would never listen to anything he said because I can kick better than him.”

 

 

 

[Hawkeye77]

7 hours ago, virtuoso said:

I agree with this statement at face value, but having seen a boatload of swing theories and gimmicks come and go in the last 30 years, I’m skeptical of new ideas in the golf instruction industry. The evidence and data that validates new ideas are actually rarely presented. Anecdote is presented a lot, ie, tour player tries new teacher/idea/method and wins tournament. Said tour player is usually not doing that a year later.

Swing "gimmicks" have been around forever.

 

Totally disagree that evidence and data validating truly new ideas are rarely presented, just have to know where to look. It's not in the context of the temporary magazine/GC "bandwagon" stuff where someone wins and "cup your wrist like DJ", that's also been around forever.  It's more in the context of ways of being able to measure/observe/pick your description what is going on in swings of highly talented players, for example, and perhaps finding common factors that may suggest confirmation of some "old" ideas or birth of "new" ideas.  I "audited" a Hackmotion seminar a few years ago - it was fascinating to listen to what some of the teachers on there were talking about - didn't understand it all, lol, but some of it resonated, particularly with something I needed to work on, even though the point of the seminar wasn't to teach us how to swing or anything like that.  

 

There are plenty of nut jobs, who surface, disappear, resurface, disappear on here from time to time. 

 

Been no different since the first printing press was in operation, you just have to sort through/seek out what you want to try and process and see what works/gets through/makes sense.  But you know that.

 

 

Edited September 2, 2023 by Hawkeye77

[virtuoso]

I agree with all that (edited to mean I agree with Soloman and Hawkeye).

 

Here is what I would add. If a teacher actually learned how a good swing worked the first year he taught (yes, unlikely), and then later chased a bunch of new gimmicky ideas because they seemed cool, contrarian, and “easier”, then the hope would be that he would later filter out the nonsense that didn’t work, and return to a base of understanding that was more fundamentally sound and proven.

 

As a side note, keeping the elbow tucked all the time is not a concept that I would consider proven and fundamentally sound. I would just assume the teacher has a general lack of knowledge.

 

Let me give you examples of new ideas that I consider faulty in practice, and not proven with evidence, data, et all.

 

The “simple” one plane swing type concepts. Classic example of taking something already complicated and making it more complicated and mysterious by over simplifying it. A lot of these concepts are based on a moe norman type swing, but what they actually do is teach a norman set up, without the actual swing dynamics.

 

What made Norman great was the fact that he employed fundamentally sound movements and geometry in his swing that you find in all great ball strikers. Teaching 20 hdcp golfers to set up like Norman without teaching them the correct movements is not helpful. They don’t move their pelvis and plane the shaft like Norman. They just throw their arms out at the ball and fall over.

 

Another new idea, or fairly new idea, that I have quibbles with, are all the swing type classification systems. There have been a fairly large number of these, some more valid than others. A lot of these systems are presented as science-y.

 

My main gripe is that, while I do believe in working around the golfer’s limitations, these limitations are treated or labeled as features or natural tendencies that should be kept intact and or enhanced in some strange way.

 

The golf swing is not a natural act. It is a very fast moving and complicated motor skill that requires high levels of precision. What a lot of these classification systems are identifying is the motor pattern the golfer has developed over a long period of time and repetition. They show up to the lesson tee with these motor patterns, and the teacher  classifies that motor pattern as an almost inborn natural trait that needs to be embraced and worked around as opposed to rectified through honest analysis, dedication and repetition.

 

Should all swings look the same? No, there are certain pieces and movements, and idiosyncrasies that need to be matched together to form a fundamentally sound movement.

 

But, to summarize, if a golfer hangs out on his right leg and slaps his arms at it, he is not a rear post golfer—he is just a sucky golfer. And he has spent years learning to become so.

 

Of course, the problem is that it’s just incredibly hard to change these motor patterns such that a golfer can actually take them to the course. But, the answer is NOT to reimagine garden variety swing errors as cool personal swing features.

 

So, my two problems with new-ish swing improvement systems:

 

Over-simplification

Over-classification

 

I’ll pass on both and just be the soul crusher when I tell people the problems with their swing, because someone has to do it.

 

Interested in your thoughts Soloman.

Edited September 2, 2023 by virtuoso

[Ghost of Snead]

1 hour ago, virtuoso said:

The golf swing is not a natural act. It is a very fast moving and complicated motor skill that requires high levels of precision. What a lot of these classification systems are identifying is the motor pattern the golfer has developed over a long period of time and repetition. They show up to the lesson tee with these motor patterns, and the teacher  classifies that motor pattern as an almost inborn natural trait that needs to be embraced and worked around as opposed to rectified through honest analysis, dedication and repetition.

 

Isn't this because a lot of teachers realize that 95% of the time, students are not going to put the time in to make the recommended changes and just want a quick band-aid fix ?  

 

    

   

Edited September 2, 2023 by Ghost of Snead

[virtuoso]

30 minutes ago, Ghost of Snead said:

 

Isn't this because a lot of teachers realize that 95% of the time, students are not going to put the time in to make the recommended changes and just want a quick band-aid fix ?  

 

    

   

Absolutely, and I’m totally onboard if that is what the customer wants. But if that teacher tells the student that his strange mix of swing deficiencies are actually just a perfectly valid swing pattern, he is just gaslighting everybody.

[Nels55]

1 hour ago, virtuoso said:

I agree with all that (edited to mean I agree with Soloman and Hawkeye).

 

Here is what I would add. If a teacher actually learned how a good swing worked the first year he taught (yes, unlikely), and then later chased a bunch of new gimmicky ideas because they seemed cool, contrarian, and “easier”, then the hope would be that he would later filter out the nonsense that didn’t work, and return to a base of understanding that was more fundamentally sound and proven.

 

As a side note, keeping the elbow tucked all the time is not a concept that I would consider proven and fundamentally sound. I would just assume the teacher has a general lack of knowledge.

 

Let me give you examples of new ideas that I consider faulty in practice, and not proven with evidence, data, et all.

 

The “simple” one plane swing type concepts. Classic example of taking something already complicated and making it more complicated and mysterious by over simplifying it. A lot of these concepts are based on a moe norman type swing, but what they actually do is teach a norman set up, without the actual swing dynamics.

 

What made Norman great was the fact that he employed fundamentally sound movements and geometry in his swing that you find in all great ball strikers. Teaching 20 hdcp golfers to set up like Norman without teaching them the correct movements is not helpful. They don’t move their pelvis and plane the shaft like Norman. They just throw their arms out at the ball and fall over.

 

Another new idea, or fairly new idea, that I have quibbles with, are all the swing type classification systems. There have been a fairly large number of these, some more valid than others. A lot of these systems are presented as science-y.

 

My main gripe is that, while I do believe in working around the golfer’s limitations, these limitations are treated or labeled as features or natural tendencies that should be kept intact and or enhanced in some strange way.

 

The golf swing is not a natural act. It is a very fast moving and complicated motor skill that requires high levels of precision. What a lot of these classification systems are identifying is the motor pattern the golfer has developed over a long period of time and repetition. They show up to the lesson tee with these motor patterns, and the teacher  classifies that motor pattern as an almost inborn natural trait that needs to be embraced and worked around as opposed to rectified through honest analysis, dedication and repetition.

 

Should all swings look the same? No, there are certain pieces and movements, and idiosyncrasies that need to be matched together to form a fundamentally sound movement.

 

But, to summarize, if a golfer hangs out on his right leg and slaps his arms at it, he is not a rear post golfer—he is just a sucky golfer. And he has spent years learning to become so.

 

Of course, the problem is that it’s just incredibly hard to change these motor patterns such that a golfer can actually take them to the course. But, the answer is NOT to reimagine garden variety swing errors as cool personal swing features.

 

So, my two problems with new-ish swing improvement systems:

 

Over-simplification

Over-classification

 

I’ll pass on both and just be the soul crusher when I tell people the problems with their swing, because someone has to do it.

 

Interested in your thoughts Soloman.

 

I agree with a lot of what you wrote but we part company in this specific example:

1 hour ago, virtuoso said:

But, to summarize, if a golfer hangs out on his right leg and slaps his arms at it, he is not a rear post golfer—he is just a sucky golfer. And he has spent years learning to become so.

 

I have watched a lot of Mike Adams / Terry Rowles / Dr. Scott Lynn and other Swing Catalyst guys and from what I have observed they would not let a rear post golfer hang out on his trail side and slap his arms at the ball.  I believe that they would try to find ways to increase his horizontal force which would get him to his lead foot and change his sucky swing to a better motion.  How they would go about this would depend on the golfer and how he responds to the teaching. 

 

[virtuoso]

1 minute ago, Nels55 said:

 

I agree with a lot of what you wrote but we part company in this specific example:

 

I have watched a lot of Mike Adams / Terry Rowles / Dr. Scott Lynn and other Swing Catalyst guys and from what I have observed they would not let a rear post golfer hang out on his trail side and slap his arms at the ball.  I believe that they would try to find ways to increase his horizontal force which would get him to his lead foot and change his sucky swing to a better motion.  How they would go about this would depend on the golfer and how he responds to the teaching. 

 

Yeah, this is a much better system than others. I have a couple minor quibbles with it, but haven’t studied it enough. The way they would classify a rear post golfer is more about when transition begins as opposed to hanging out there.

 

Rear anchor might have been a better description than rear post.

[Soloman1]

1 hour ago, virtuoso said:

I agree with all that (edited to mean I agree with Soloman and Hawkeye).

 

Here is what I would add. If a teacher actually learned how a good swing worked the first year he taught (yes, unlikely), and then later chased a bunch of new gimmicky ideas because they seemed cool, contrarian, and “easier”, then the hope would be that he would later filter out the nonsense that didn’t work, and return to a base of understanding that was more fundamentally sound and proven.

 

As a side note, keeping the elbow tucked all the time is not a concept that I would consider proven and fundamentally sound. I would just assume the teacher has a general lack of knowledge.

 

Let me give you examples of new ideas that I consider faulty in practice, and not proven with evidence, data, et all.

 

The “simple” one plane swing type concepts. Classic example of taking something already complicated and making it more complicated and mysterious by over simplifying it. A lot of these concepts are based on a moe norman type swing, but what they actually do is teach a norman set up, without the actual swing dynamics.

 

What made Norman great was the fact that he employed fundamentally sound movements and geometry in his swing that you find in all great ball strikers. Teaching 20 hdcp golfers to set up like Norman without teaching them the correct movements is not helpful. They don’t move their pelvis and plane the shaft like Norman. They just throw their arms out at the ball and fall over.

 

Another new idea, or fairly new idea, that I have quibbles with, are all the swing type classification systems. There have been a fairly large number of these, some more valid than others. A lot of these systems are presented as science-y.

 

My main gripe is that, while I do believe in working around the golfer’s limitations, these limitations are treated or labeled as features or natural tendencies that should be kept intact and or enhanced in some strange way.

 

The golf swing is not a natural act. It is a very fast moving and complicated motor skill that requires high levels of precision. What a lot of these classification systems are identifying is the motor pattern the golfer has developed over a long period of time and repetition. They show up to the lesson tee with these motor patterns, and the teacher  classifies that motor pattern as an almost inborn natural trait that needs to be embraced and worked around as opposed to rectified through honest analysis, dedication and repetition.

 

Should all swings look the same? No, there are certain pieces and movements, and idiosyncrasies that need to be matched together to form a fundamentally sound movement.

 

But, to summarize, if a golfer hangs out on his right leg and slaps his arms at it, he is not a rear post golfer—he is just a sucky golfer. And he has spent years learning to become so.

 

Of course, the problem is that it’s just incredibly hard to change these motor patterns such that a golfer can actually take them to the course. But, the answer is NOT to reimagine garden variety swing errors as cool personal swing features.

 

So, my two problems with new-ish swing improvement systems:

 

Over-simplification

Over-classification

 

I’ll pass on both and just be the soul crusher when I tell people the problems with their swing, because someone has to do it.

 

Interested in your thoughts Soloman.

 

I agree completely. It doesn’t take long for a poor swing to be embedded, and it’s a hard journey to change. You gotta get ‘em early. I’m in the camp that teaching the pivot and body sequence first, and moving to arms and hands second would get young players playing better faster. The faster they get better, fewer will quit when they discover the opposite sex in high school.

 

I think it’s faster to build from that. Maybe a motto would be grow golf with the pivot. Haha.

 

I guess it’s natural for people to hang their shingle on their hook, their specialty. And what does the market want? Golfers generally want three things from a lesson, in this order:

 

1. More distance.

2. More consistency.

3. See Number 1.

 

One of my favorite sayings is that people hate two things. They hate the way things are and they hate change.

 

Students aren’t always good students. It takes time and energy to change.

 

Golf is like the five stages of grief for some players.

 

Denial. It can’t be me, it has to be the clubs. I’m a good athlete, I just need to know the secret.

 

Anger. Why the hell can’t I do this? Stupid game…

 

Bargaining. OK, I guess I’ll watch everything on YouTube and try them all once. That’ll work. As a last resort, I take a lesson.

 

Depression. I took one lesson and the teacher made me worse. Golf teachers don’t know what they’re talking about.They’re all stupid.

 

Acceptance. I guess I’ll just be a ___ handicap and drink more beer.

 

The instructor, regardless of how good they are, has to forgive themself, because some people just can’t play golf and will never be scratch or better like they think they should be. Everybody thinks they’re the next Eric Clapton or home run king.

 

Lastly, I played with Moe several times in the early 1980’s when he’d drive to Florida in the winter. You’re right about setup vs. swing and body movement. That’s a whole other conversation. Too long for here. Even Moe didn’t do what he said or thought. They were just his keys. I can still hit a pretty good “Moe-ish” driver. It’s fun and goes farther than people think with what feels like a half swing. I have big hands like he did, and that helps…

 

Cheers

 

 

 

[virtuoso]

6 minutes ago, Soloman1 said:

 

I agree completely. It doesn’t take long for a poor swing to be embedded, and it’s a hard journey to change. You gotta get ‘em early. I’m in the camp that teaching the pivot and body sequence first, and moving to arms and hands second would get young players playing better faster. The faster they get better, fewer will quit when they discover the opposite sex in high school.

 

I think it’s faster to build from that. Maybe a motto would be grow golf with the pivot. Haha.

 

I guess it’s natural for people to hang their shingle on their hook, their specialty. And what does the market want? Golfers generally want three things from a lesson, in this order:

 

1. More distance.

2. More consistency.

3. See Number 1.

 

One of my favorite sayings is that people hate two things. They hate the way things are and they hate change.

 

Students aren’t always good students. It takes time and energy to change.

 

Golf is like the five stages of grief for some players.

 

Denial. It can’t be me, it has to be the clubs. I’m a good athlete, I just need to know the secret.

 

Anger. Why the hell can’t I do this? Stupid game…

 

Bargaining. OK, I guess I’ll watch everything on YouTube and try them all once. That’ll work. As a last resort, I take a lesson.

 

Depression. I took one lesson and the teacher made me worse. Golf teachers don’t know what they’re talking about.They’re all stupid.

 

Acceptance. I guess I’ll just be a ___ handicap and drink more beer.

 

The instructor, regardless of how good they are, has to forgive themself, because some people just can’t play golf and will never be scratch or better like they think they should be. Everybody thinks they’re the next Eric Clapton or home run king.

 

Lastly, I played with Moe several times in the early 1980’s when he’d drive to Florida in the winter. You’re right about setup vs. swing and body movement. That’s a whole other conversation. Too long for here. Even Moe didn’t do what he said or thought. They were just his keys. I can still hit a pretty good “Moe-ish” driver. It’s fun and goes farther than people think with what feels like a half swing. I have big hands like he did, and that helps…

 

Cheers

 

 

 

The 5 stages is fantastic.

[ThinkingPlus]

9 minutes ago, Soloman1 said:

 

I agree completely. It doesn’t take long for a poor swing to be embedded, and it’s a hard journey to change. You gotta get ‘em early. I’m in the camp that teaching the pivot and body sequence first, and moving to arms and hands second would get young players playing better faster. The faster they get better, fewer will quit when they discover the opposite sex in high school.

 

I think it’s faster to build from that. Maybe a motto would be grow golf with the pivot. Haha.

 

I guess it’s natural for people to hang their shingle on their hook, their specialty. And what does the market want? Golfers generally want three things from a lesson, in this order:

 

1. More distance.

2. More consistency.

3. See Number 1.

 

One of my favorite sayings is that people hate two things. They hate the way things are and they hate change.

 

Students aren’t always good students. It takes time and energy to change.

 

Golf is like the five stages of grief for some players.

 

Denial. It can’t be me, it has to be the clubs. I’m a good athlete, I just need to know the secret.

 

Anger. Why the hell can’t I do this? Stupid game…

 

Bargaining. OK, I guess I’ll watch everything on YouTube and try them all once. That’ll work. As a last resort, I take a lesson.

 

Depression. I took one lesson and the teacher made me worse. Golf teachers don’t know what they’re talking about.They’re all stupid.

 

Acceptance. I guess I’ll just be a ___ handicap and drink more beer.

 

The instructor, regardless of how good they are, has to forgive themself, because some people just can’t play golf and will never be scratch or better like they think they should be. Everybody thinks they’re the next Eric Clapton or home run king.

 

Lastly, I played with Moe several times in the early 1980’s when he’d drive to Florida in the winter. You’re right about setup vs. swing and body movement. That’s a whole other conversation. Too long for here. Even Moe didn’t do what he said or thought. They were just his keys. I can still hit a pretty good “Moe-ish” driver. It’s fun and goes farther than people think with what feels like a half swing. I have big hands like he did, and that helps…

 

Cheers

 

 

 

It's sad to think such thought processes are common. 

[Zitlow]

The "experts" use gimmicks to sell videos and lessons. The band aid approach doesn't make people better they make people worse in a lot of cases. Then they are told by the "expert" that it takes weeks, months and years to get better. 

 

Even these highly educated PhDs like Sasho, Kwon, Nesbitt and others can't come to a consensus on the most efficient way to create and apply energy to a golf ball with a golf club.  

 

 

[Ghost of Snead]

14 minutes ago, Zitlow said:

The "experts" use gimmicks to sell videos and lessons. The band aid approach doesn't make people better they make people worse in a lot of cases. Then they are told by the "expert" that it takes weeks, months and years to get better. 

 

Even these highly educated PhDs like Sasho, Kwon, Nesbitt and others can't come to a consensus on the most efficient way to create and apply energy to a golf ball with a golf club.  

 

 

 

If you have ingrained swing flaws and have to "undo" them and learn a new pattern, how long would you think is reasonable to "get better" ?  

[CasualLie]

8 minutes ago, Ghost of Snead said:

 

If you have ingrained swing flaws and have to "undo" them and learn a new pattern, how long would you think is reasonable to "get better" ?  

 

Define "get better".

 

Or better yet, don't bother defining an end goal, but instead accept it's a never ending journey.  Keep at it, and yes, next year you will be better then you are this year, and the year after even better.  But how much?  What will it do for your index?  Who cares?  Enjoy the journey.

[Zitlow]

50 minutes ago, Ghost of Snead said:

 

If you have ingrained swing flaws and have to "undo" them and learn a new pattern, how long would you think is reasonable to "get better" ?  

 

IMO most mechanical flaws are caused by conceptual issues. They should see tangible results pretty quick once they get they get the correct mental imagery of the swing starting with the release and working backward. 

 

Proprioception plays a big part ingraining the motion into a trained reflex pattern. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[glk]

1 hour ago, Zitlow said:

 

Even these highly educated PhDs like Sasho, Kwon, Nesbitt and others can't come to a consensus on the most efficient way to create and apply energy to a golf ball with a golf club.  

 

 

News to me.    Whatever disagreements they have are minor and involve hand force around impact - the alpha wars.   You privy to something else?

[tthomasgolfer605]

They should retitle the video, Add 30+ yards if you don't have a job, family and have 60 hours a week to devote to the game. 

Edited September 2, 2023 by tthomasgolfer605

[MPStrat]

29 minutes ago, tthomasgolfer605 said:

They should retitle the video, Add 30+ yards if you don't have a job, family and have 60 hours a week to devote to the game. 

But if that was the title they couldn’t capitalize on golfers in their bargaining phase