Snap Hooks Only with Driver

[getitdaily]

8 minutes ago, Righty to Lefty said:

Go hit shots left handed and report back when you are a even a 15 handicap...I'll wait. Also since you are a + handicap right handed then your swing motion left handed should look amazing and you should immediately be able to perform a functional golf shot because you are so proficient playing right handed. I'll wait for the swing videos as I'm sure you will have the ready immediately. I played pretty golf swing right handed and it took me six years to break 90 right handed.  I understood impact as I switched over to lefty and it took me six months to break 90 and I shot 1 over par within 18 months.  I never once filmed my swing during that time and only monitored my impact. I am not attempting to get in a pissing contest with you in regards to handicap but what I am trying to show is that understanding impact and how it applies to the golfer is much more important than how the swing looks visually because even if someone posted their swing on here and stated that they were hitting it amazing, their swing would still fail the eye test and would be picked apart.  I literally hit the ball just as far as Rory does left handed but if I put my swing on here asking for advice it would be mascaraed even if the shot posted flew some 300 yards finishing at 330 which are common numbers that I achieve with driver.  

 

Impact is not trial and error as there is only one point along your swing arc that produces the shot you intend and everything else is a miss....period.  Adjustments to swing motion are not simple fixes and lowering tee height does not fix the issue either if you truly understand impact.  This is not up for debate...it is fact. So say he lowers his tee height...great... now he is hitting a hook with a lower angle of attack...how does that in any way fix the hook?  It just flat out doesn't as a club face, plane / shoulder line adjustment, or a combo of the two are the only ways to correct shot curvature issues because if the ball was too far forward he would also be mentioning that his strike is bad, but he is not stating that and that is important to note. It is much easier to correct ball flight if you don't compromise your swing motion and only make plane and or club face adjustments as these are adjustments that are made all the time to get through a given round of golf and you would never change your swing motion mid round.  Am I making sense? 

My last reply to you in this thread is this...

 

High ability players will find a way to make things work. The more extreme their positions, the more variability in their shots. Extremes make it difficult to repeat quality shots over and over.

 

I say this because I know this, lessen extremes, with the same ability, and swing variables start to tighten up. I saw it in my own data as I made changes to get out of extreme positions.

 

Can his ball position work - yes. 

 

But he wants to play higher level golf. He wants to be scratch, not 4. He needs to reduce extremes. 

 

Later.

[Primo1868]

43 minutes ago, Righty to Lefty said:

I'm back to you right now in that case:  

The first model is a square to the arc iron shot while the second model is a square to the arc iron shot and you could put that pencil at any point along the arc and then align it to to the target line and it would fly straight so your ball position assertion is incorrect because if the ball position was too far forward strike would be compromised and he never mentioned that his strike was compromised.  There is absolutely no way that you can tell from a face on view if the ball position is too far forward so you were just guessing because he hit didn't mention that the shot presented was a hook and you would need to see down the line to even begin to try and detect a hook.   I am not understanding your "3 degrees in" reference as he is clearly hitting up on these shots and thus he would be striking the shots on the out to in portion of his swing arc.  

 

The D-plane Youtube video you screenshot(s) above does not describe a square to the arc iron shot, the video simply defines the path direction parallel to the target line that one would need to have a negative angle of attack for an iron shot and a positive angle of attack for a driver - the video does not even mention club face control or orientation. The face to path relationship is what defines ball flight laws. All @getitdaily is trying to suggest is that by moving ball position back (and leaving path and release the same) the OP will strike the ball with a more open clubface which will decrease the difference in OP's  positive (in to out) swing path and negative to path face angle which will provide a more functional golf shot (assuming he isn't doing anything funky with release). OP would likely continue to have a positive AoA and a quality strike with this advice, or he may not. 

 

The concepts presented by most parties in this conversation to solve the problem may all work. The delivery of the subject matter in its intent is what is creating this "argument". You are implying the same end result as @getitdaily by telling the OP to open his club face at address and keep everything else the same. It is up to the OP to decypher what will work best for him or see a professional for in person advice.

 

Furthermore, I feel like the guy walking through my local farmers marker who ends up overhearing people argue over their interpretation of the bible. It makes me feel icky and I will walk away now.

[Righty to Lefty]

11 minutes ago, getitdaily said:

My last reply to you in this thread is this...

 

High ability players will find a way to make things work. The more extreme their positions, the more variability in their shots. Extremes make it difficult to repeat quality shots over and over.

 

I say this because I know this, lessen extremes, with the same ability, and swing variables start to tighten up. I saw it in my own data as I made changes to get out of extreme positions.

 

Can his ball position work - yes. 

 

But he wants to play higher level golf. He wants to be scratch, not 4. He needs to reduce extremes. 

 

Later.

Why would it be your last reply...do you have somewhere that you have to go?  Teeing the ball high is not the problem...not completely understanding face to path is the problem as it would still present itself even at a lower tee height regardless of what you say this is the fact. Reducing extremes comes from understanding impact and paying attention to every shot that you hit in regards to strike, start direction, and amount of curvature and adjusting IMMEDIATELY and accordingly as you progress through a given round of golf. That is how you reduce extremes as  I assure you that tee height isn't preventing him from becoming a scratch golfer.  Peace out...we'll still be here when you come back.  

[KD1]

2 hours ago, Righty to Lefty said:

Hand eye coordination has nothing to do with hitting a golf ball, because it isn't moving.

You lost me. Can you elaborate on hand eye coordination having nothing to do with it?

 

 

[cav5]

32 minutes ago, getitdaily said:

My last reply to you in this thread is this...

 

High ability players will find a way to make things work. The more extreme their positions, the more variability in their shots. Extremes make it difficult to repeat quality shots over and over.

 

I say this because I know this, lessen extremes, with the same ability, and swing variables start to tighten up. I saw it in my own data as I made changes to get out of extreme positions.

 

Can his ball position work - yes. 

 

But he wants to play higher level golf. He wants to be scratch, not 4. He needs to reduce extremes. 

 

Later.

Wow, incredible take. High level players make things work. You don't say- that's probably why they are high level players.

 

Are you saying these high level players are better at guessing? im confused.

 

Or do they understand (conciously or not) how to make their swings produce the correct shot?

 

And extremes? What about Lee Trevino? Or does he get a pass because he's high level?

[getitdaily]

21 minutes ago, Righty to Lefty said:

Why would it be your last reply...do you have somewhere that you have to go?  Teeing the ball high is not the problem...not completely understanding face to path is the problem as it would still present itself even at a lower tee height regardless of what you say this is the fact. Reducing extremes comes from understanding impact and paying attention to every shot that you hit in regards to strike, start direction, and amount of curvature and adjusting IMMEDIATELY and accordingly as you progress through a given round of golf. That is how you reduce extremes as  I assure you that tee height isn't preventing him from becoming a scratch golfer.  Peace out...we'll still be here when you come back.  

Because this is going nowhere and I don't plan to muck up OP's thread any more than it already is. 

 

I presented my position and why. You presented yours and why. 

 

It's up to OP to pick a path.

 

If you want to open a thread on "why ball position doesn't matter" then I'll be happy to join in. 

 

For this thread, no mas discutiendo

[Righty to Lefty]

49 minutes ago, Primo1868 said:

 

The D-plane Youtube video you screenshot(s) above does not describe a square to the arc iron shot, the video simply defines the path direction parallel to the target line that one would need to have a negative angle of attack for an iron shot and a positive angle of attack for a driver - the video does not even mention club face control or orientation. The face to path relationship is what defines ball flight laws. All @getitdaily is trying to suggest is that by moving ball position back (and leaving path and release the same) the OP will strike the ball with a more open clubface which will decrease the difference in OP's  positive (in to out) swing path and negative to path face angle which will provide a more functional golf shot (assuming he isn't doing anything funky with release). OP would likely continue to have a positive AoA and a quality strike with this advice, or he may not. 

 

The concepts presented by most parties in this conversation to solve the problem may all work. The delivery of the subject matter in its intent is what is creating this "argument". You are implying the same end result as @getitdaily by telling the OP to open his club face at address and keep everything else the same. It is up to the OP to decypher what will work best for him or see a professional for in person advice.

 

Furthermore, I feel like the guy walking through my local farmers marker who ends up overhearing people argue over their interpretation of the bible. It makes me feel icky and I will walk away now.

I used that video for the still shots  because I love the trashcan model representation of the swing with the low point mark on it and the pencil representing the club face but here you go if you needed the reference to the deeper explanation: 

 

I try to explain as simply as possible until people are ready for the deeper explanations as it is sensory overload at first but over time it becomes dead simple if you take the time to really dig into it and understand it.  Striking driver on the in to out portion of the swing arc is not optimal as driver should be struck on the out to in portion of the swing arc with a positive AoA.  Yes you could move the ball back in the stance to strike the ball earlier in the swing arc, and that is what I suggested as one of the fixes, but we're are talking a ball width or so of movement back in the stance and not moving it from being out-to in to to the in-to-out portion of the swing arc? Am I making sense?  By the way I appreciate that you came back with questions looking for explanations and clarification so thanks for that really. 

Edited September 13, 2023 by Righty to Lefty

[Righty to Lefty]

29 minutes ago, KD1 said:

You lost me. Can you elaborate on hand eye coordination having nothing to do with it?

 

 

Can a blind person play golf?  Yes...thus there is your answer as the ball waits for you to hit it and they are not using their eyes to track an object to strike it because they are obviously blind. If someone sets them up to the ball and their arc remains stable, they can hit the ball and even play good golf.  Now could a blind person play baseball, tennis, ping pong, or cricket? Absolutely not as those sports require hand eye coordination.  Your hands should have little if any injection into any golf shot that you ever hit by the way.  

 

Pat Browne holds the record for the lowest rounds ever shot by a blind golfer, a 74 at the Mission Hills Country Club in California.

Source: https://www.usblindgolf.com/history/

Edited September 13, 2023 by Righty to Lefty

[Primo1868]

16 minutes ago, Righty to Lefty said:

I used that video for the still shots  because I love the trashcan model representation of the swing with the low point mark on it and the pencil representing the club face but here you go if you needed the reference to the deeper explanation: 

 

I try to explain as simply as possible until people are ready for the deeper explanations as it is sensory overload at first but over time it becomes dead simple if you take the time to really dig into it and understand it.  Striking driver on the in to out portion of the swing arc is not optimal as driver should be struck on the out to in portion of the swing arc with a positive AoA.  Yes you could move the ball back in the stance to strike the ball earlier in the swing arc, and that is what I suggested as one of the fixes, but we're are talking a ball width or so of movement back in the stance and not moving it from being out-to in to to the in-to-out portion of the swing arc? Am I making sense?  

 

What you are saying makes sense and I agree. Furthermore, I have a functional understanding of D-plane, swing path, and face orientation at impact. The argument is not, "How does OP optimize his driver performance?.  The OP is simply asking for help with snap hooks. Like I said in my post, if he wants a more functional golf shot, he needs to lessen the difference between his face to path. There are a number of suggestions on how to accomplish this in this thread. It is up to the OP to decypher what will work best for him or see a professional for in person advice.

[Righty to Lefty]

11 minutes ago, Primo1868 said:

 

What you are saying makes sense and I agree. Furthermore, I have a functional understanding of D-plane, swing path, and face orientation at impact. The argument is not, "How does OP optimize his driver performance?.  The OP is simply asking for help with snap hooks. Like I said in my post, if he wants a more functional golf shot, he needs to lessen the difference between his face to path. There are a number of suggestions on how to accomplish this in this thread. It is up to the OP to decypher what will work best for him or see a professional for in person advice.

Wait....did you just say what I said makes sense?!! I have arrived GolfWRX !!!! Holy Sh$t !!! And yes I completely agree with your assertion of lessening the difference between his face and path. The problem I keep seeing is that most don't truly understand how to manipulate the face to path relationship or they really would have no reason to be here asking for swing advice.  That is why I always start there because if you truly understand it you can eventually coach yourself on the fly during a round of golf especially if you are always noting your strike quality, start direction, and amount of curvature in relation to your intentions on EVERY shot that you hit. This is also why it is difficult to decipher swing videos especially if you can't see the resulting ball flight or don't have Trackman numbers and such. Am I making sense? 

Edited September 13, 2023 by Righty to Lefty

[Righty to Lefty]

Another explanation: 

 

[Primo1868]

4 minutes ago, Righty to Lefty said:

Wait....did you just say what I said makes sense?!! I have arrived GolfWRX !!!! Holy Sh$t !!! And yes I completely agree with your assertion of lessening the difference between his face and path. The problem I keep seeing is that most don't truly understand how to manipulate the face to path relationship or they really would have no reason to be here asking for swing advice.  That is why I always start there because if you truly understand it you can eventually coach yourself on the fly during a round of golf especially if you are always noting your strike quality, start direction, and amount of curvature in relation to your intentions on EVERY shot that you hit. Am I making sense? 

You make sense, but I disagree. An understanding of how the golf club moves in space does not mean one understands how to move it. I've met plenty of mechanical engineers who cannot change the oil in their truck. We are getting in the weeds, so, I no longer want to hijack OP's thread.

[KD1]

40 minutes ago, Righty to Lefty said:

Wait....did you just say what I said makes sense?

 

I'll go out on a limb and say that everyone *here* understands what you're saying. The ball flight laws aren't complicated. Any of us who have spent any time nerding out of over the golf swing had to learn them.

 

I think what people are having a hard time swallowing is your dogmatic approach to golf swing instruction.

 

The blind golfer thing is very interesting. It reminds me of that Robin Matthews Williams guy that was on youtube for a while. He'd give lessons and have people puring the ball with their eyes closed or with their head up looking in front of them. Whatever happened to him??

 

Anyway, good luck @JBerenger!

Edited September 13, 2023 by KD1

[Righty to Lefty]

3 minutes ago, Primo1868 said:

You make sense, but I disagree. An understanding of how the golf club moves in space does not mean one understands how to move it. I've met plenty of mechanical engineers who cannot change the oil in their truck. We are getting in the weeds, so, I no longer want to hijack OP's thread.

I didn't say that knowing impact means that you can execute athletically as those are two very different things, but what I am saying is that knowing how to decipher the principles of impact equips you to steepen your learning curve, so long as you are athletically capable which obviously the person that started this thread is.  If you understand impact you will never ever ask why a shot flew the way it did because you will know precisely why it flew the way it flew. You can also interpret your own ball flight on the fly as you play make the micro adjustments that must be made to get through a given round to keep it on track as you fatigue. As you attain real mastery you can set up to shots knowing that a certain shot can't happen and truly eliminate a certain side of the course.  I don't feel like it is a thread highjack because the true meaning of what a snap hook is being examined and the real information of how to correct is being brought to the surface. 

[Righty to Lefty]

2 minutes ago, KD1 said:

 

I'll go out on a limb and say that everyone *here* understands what you're saying. The ball flight laws aren't complicated. Any of us who have spent any time nerding out of over the golf swing had to learn them.

 

I think what people are having a hard time swallowing is your dogmatic approach to golf swing instruction.

 

The blind golfer thing is very interesting. It reminds me of that Robin Matthews Williams guy that was on youtube for a while. He'd give lessons and have people puring the ball with their eyes closed or with their head up looking in front of them. Whatever happened to him??

 

Anyway, good luck @JBerenger!

Most do not I assure you or this swing fix part of the forum would not exist.  Most golfers have no clue about ball flight laws and very few if any know d plane and yet they govern every golf shot that has ever, or will ever be hit.  That is precisely why I ask a person first off if they know impact and that is because I will never assume that they know because most likely they do not.  

[KD1]

You're referring to "most golfers". I'm referring to golf nerds who are regular posters on this forum that you are arguing with. When someone disagrees with your approach you fall back on to ball flight laws over and over again. But no one is arguing the ball flight laws, they're arguing about how one should approach the swing fix.

 

I said "everyone *here* understand what you're saying", clearly implying the golf swing nerds. You twisted that to "most golfers have no clue". This is a straw man.

 

Am I making sense?

[Righty to Lefty]

6 minutes ago, KD1 said:

You're referring to "most golfers". I'm referring to golf nerds who are regular posters on this forum that you are arguing with. When someone disagrees with your approach you fall back on to ball flight laws over and over again. But no one is arguing the ball flight laws, they're arguing about how one should approach the swing fix.

 

I said "everyone *here* understand what you're saying", clearly implying the golf swing nerds. You twisted that to "most golfers have no clue". This is a straw man.

 

Am I making sense?

I am tracking but who is on here asking for swing advice? People who already know impact, or those that don't?  I've never seen Valtiel or Schienblum ask for swing advice before.  I don't fall back onto ball flight laws and d plane. I start there because that is what governs all golf shots. 

Edited September 13, 2023 by Righty to Lefty

[KD1]

25 minutes ago, Righty to Lefty said:

I am tracking but who is on here asking for swing advice? People who already know impact, or those that don't?  I've never seen Valtiel or Schienblum ask for swing advice before.   I don't fall back onto ball flight laws and d plane. I start there because that is what governs all golf shots.

You're doing it again. I'm referring to your arguing in this thread with the swing nerd regulars of this forum. Can you see how you just manipulated that to suit your position?

 

You repeatedly explained ball flight laws and posted videos about them in this thread to people who already understand them but they aren't arguing against them. Your 'fall back' onto ball fight laws is referring to assuming people who disagree with your approach are attacking ball flight laws. No one here would claim that they don't govern all golf shots.

Edited September 13, 2023 by KD1

[Righty to Lefty]

I am not arguing with anybody...if you know the ball flight laws and d plane then I am not talking to you but I will never assume that someone knows them and will always ask. I will also never suggest that anyone compromise their swing motion unless it is a last resort and it is often the first resort in the swing threads I have found.  I want to make sure that the athlete understands impact, and can get themselves in the correct location to have a chance to strike the ball with leverage, and see how their swing motion calms, and then progress from there.  I will also never compare someone's swing to a pro's swing as no two athletes are physically the same even though the requirements at impact are. 

[Valtiel]

6 hours ago, Righty to Lefty said:

And yes I completely agree with your assertion of lessening the difference between his face and path. The problem I keep seeing is that most don't truly understand how to manipulate the face to path relationship or they really would have no reason to be here asking for swing advice.  That is why I always start there because if you truly understand it you can eventually coach yourself on the fly during a round of golf especially if you are always noting your strike quality, start direction, and amount of curvature in relation to your intentions on EVERY shot that you hit. This is also why it is difficult to decipher swing videos especially if you can't see the resulting ball flight or don't have Trackman numbers and such. Am I making sense? 

 

5 hours ago, Righty to Lefty said:

Most do not I assure you or this swing fix part of the forum would not exist.  Most golfers have no clue about ball flight laws and very few if any know d plane and yet they govern every golf shot that has ever, or will ever be hit.  That is precisely why I ask a person first off if they know impact and that is because I will never assume that they know because most likely they do not.  

 

5 hours ago, Righty to Lefty said:

I don't fall back onto ball flight laws and d plane. I start there because that is what governs all golf shots. 

I don't tend to weigh in these convos unless there is something constructive to add, and I think since you're starting to explain your thought process a little bit there is something worth discussing here. Apologies to @JBerenger for the further hijacking of the thread, thankfully I think you have some solid things to work on so I don't feel this is taking away from that. 

I think we'd probably agree on most of the fundamentals, but I think there is likely both a fundamental disagreement on their order of importance and more specifically HOW they are communicated. I can say this having decades of experience in the fields where this dynamic is prevalent; you communicate like an engineer and in ways that strike me as potentially neurodivergent. I've long occupied roles in-between engineers and designers/creatives/end users with varying degrees of neuro typical or atypical-ness and your style of communication feels exactly like what i've needed to translate to others because of the dense and difficult to digest manner that its presented. No judgement by the way, my current job/company is big on neurodiverse inclusivity and education, it's just that you rarely directly address anyone's actual swing, their concerns/frustrations, and what they are trying to do. You do occasionally, but otherwise its what @KD1 described which is "falling back" on the same general info dump with the same accompanying screenshots, and you rarely get direct responses from people as a result. And the frequent question of "do you understand impact?" and how it's garnered very few answers that I have seen means you either consider it to a rhetorical question, in which case you shouldn't really be asking it, or you haven't yet picked up on that it's just not a *good* question without easy to digest supplemental info. And again, it's not necessarily because the information is bad, it's that it reads from the outside like a canned spam email. 

I apologize for the bluntness, but you clearly care enough to try to help and my goal is to try to explain why you get the pushback you do and to encourage NOT making the mistake of dismissing said pushback as coming from small minds that simply don't "get it". I think the approach of getting people "in the correct location to have a chance to strike the ball with leverage, and see how their swing motion calms, and then progress from there" as you put it is fantastic, but for *in person* instruction where you're in the context to be able to react immediately to any changes. I just don't think this works in an online forum, and certainly not with how its being presented currently. If that "correct location" is so paramount then you should be investing time and effort into illustrating what that is with accessible graphics/visuals and not using the same screenshots from youtube from a single video about D-plane/flight laws. That video IS very informative btw, but the average person posting videos here has an ocean between where they are likely at currently and where the fundamental understanding of ballflight laws will become helpful, and IMO far more effort needs to be put towards narrowing that gap via how you're communicating the concepts. The guy with a two way miss spanning several fairways doesn't need to be asked "do you understand impact?" like it's the beginning of an infomercial, IMO he needs an explanation aimed at why all the compensations and misalignments/positions he has gotten himself in to are causing the problems, how to neutralize them, and all with an eye on how advice or instruction from the internet and whether it has been misunderstood, misapplied, or is just straight up misinformation. 
 

[GolfTurkey]

There have been some entertaining threads lately...

[Valtiel]

5 minutes ago, GolfTurkey said:

There have been some entertaining threads lately...

#7 putters causing the ball to curve near the hole and the sweetspot on irons being *too* in the middle of the face are definitely all timers. 😆

[GolfTurkey]

3 minutes ago, Valtiel said:

 sweetspot on irons being *too* in the middle of the face 😆

 

I'm tempted to print that one out and frame it in case the forum database gets lost without a backup.

[Primo1868]

11 hours ago, Valtiel said:

 

 

I don't tend to weigh in these convos unless there is something constructive to add, and I think since you're starting to explain your thought process a little bit there is something worth discussing here. Apologies to @JBerenger for the further hijacking of the thread, thankfully I think you have some solid things to work on so I don't feel this is taking away from that. 

I think we'd probably agree on most of the fundamentals, but I think there is likely both a fundamental disagreement on their order of importance and more specifically HOW they are communicated. I can say this having decades of experience in the fields where this dynamic is prevalent; you communicate like an engineer and in ways that strike me as potentially neurodivergent. I've long occupied roles in-between engineers and designers/creatives/end users with varying degrees of neuro typical or atypical-ness and your style of communication feels exactly like what i've needed to translate to others because of the dense and difficult to digest manner that its presented. No judgement by the way, my current job/company is big on neurodiverse inclusivity and education, it's just that you rarely directly address anyone's actual swing, their concerns/frustrations, and what they are trying to do. You do occasionally, but otherwise its what @KD1 described which is "falling back" on the same general info dump with the same accompanying screenshots, and you rarely get direct responses from people as a result. And the frequent question of "do you understand impact?" and how it's garnered very few answers that I have seen means you either consider it to a rhetorical question, in which case you shouldn't really be asking it, or you haven't yet picked up on that it's just not a *good* question without easy to digest supplemental info. And again, it's not necessarily because the information is bad, it's that it reads from the outside like a canned spam email. 

I apologize for the bluntness, but you clearly care enough to try to help and my goal is to try to explain why you get the pushback you do and to encourage NOT making the mistake of dismissing said pushback as coming from small minds that simply don't "get it". I think the approach of getting people "in the correct location to have a chance to strike the ball with leverage, and see how their swing motion calms, and then progress from there" as you put it is fantastic, but for *in person* instruction where you're in the context to be able to react immediately to any changes. I just don't think this works in an online forum, and certainly not with how its being presented currently. If that "correct location" is so paramount then you should be investing time and effort into illustrating what that is with accessible graphics/visuals and not using the same screenshots from youtube from a single video about D-plane/flight laws. That video IS very informative btw, but the average person posting videos here has an ocean between where they are likely at currently and where the fundamental understanding of ballflight laws will become helpful, and IMO far more effort needs to be put towards narrowing that gap via how you're communicating the concepts. The guy with a two way miss spanning several fairways doesn't need to be asked "do you understand impact?" like it's the beginning of an infomercial, IMO he needs an explanation aimed at why all the compensations and misalignments/positions he has gotten himself in to are causing the problems, how to neutralize them, and all with an eye on how advice or instruction from the internet and whether it has been misunderstood, misapplied, or is just straight up misinformation. 
 

 

Wonderfully put. 

[JBerenger]

On 9/13/2023 at 9:05 AM, getitdaily said:

Hang on here...just a few posts above you said you have a LM at work that you practice with and you're a club fitter...

 

What am I missing?

It’s a garbage gc2 no club stats only ball stats. 

[JBerenger]

I just wanted to update you all and say thank you all for all of your advice. Went to the range today and I hit driver extremely well. There is still alot of work to be done to fix my swing but I'm extremely happy to be back on track. I have a college tournament tomorrow and will update on this thread for anyone who may care. Here is a video from today. Thank you to all of y'all. 

 

[the bishop]

Good luck!

[Valtiel]

Godspeed! Please include face on views with your future follow-ups if you want to get advice on progress. 👍

[Ri_Redneck]

Swing is looking good. Nice and effortless.

 

Good luck!

 

BT

[Righty to Lefty]

On 9/13/2023 at 8:48 PM, Valtiel said:

 

 

I don't tend to weigh in these convos unless there is something constructive to add, and I think since you're starting to explain your thought process a little bit there is something worth discussing here. Apologies to @JBerenger for the further hijacking of the thread, thankfully I think you have some solid things to work on so I don't feel this is taking away from that. 

I think we'd probably agree on most of the fundamentals, but I think there is likely both a fundamental disagreement on their order of importance and more specifically HOW they are communicated. I can say this having decades of experience in the fields where this dynamic is prevalent; you communicate like an engineer and in ways that strike me as potentially neurodivergent. I've long occupied roles in-between engineers and designers/creatives/end users with varying degrees of neuro typical or atypical-ness and your style of communication feels exactly like what i've needed to translate to others because of the dense and difficult to digest manner that its presented. No judgement by the way, my current job/company is big on neurodiverse inclusivity and education, it's just that you rarely directly address anyone's actual swing, their concerns/frustrations, and what they are trying to do. You do occasionally, but otherwise its what @KD1 described which is "falling back" on the same general info dump with the same accompanying screenshots, and you rarely get direct responses from people as a result. And the frequent question of "do you understand impact?" and how it's garnered very few answers that I have seen means you either consider it to a rhetorical question, in which case you shouldn't really be asking it, or you haven't yet picked up on that it's just not a *good* question without easy to digest supplemental info. And again, it's not necessarily because the information is bad, it's that it reads from the outside like a canned spam email. 

I apologize for the bluntness, but you clearly care enough to try to help and my goal is to try to explain why you get the pushback you do and to encourage NOT making the mistake of dismissing said pushback as coming from small minds that simply don't "get it". I think the approach of getting people "in the correct location to have a chance to strike the ball with leverage, and see how their swing motion calms, and then progress from there" as you put it is fantastic, but for *in person* instruction where you're in the context to be able to react immediately to any changes. I just don't think this works in an online forum, and certainly not with how its being presented currently. If that "correct location" is so paramount then you should be investing time and effort into illustrating what that is with accessible graphics/visuals and not using the same screenshots from youtube from a single video about D-plane/flight laws. That video IS very informative btw, but the average person posting videos here has an ocean between where they are likely at currently and where the fundamental understanding of ballflight laws will become helpful, and IMO far more effort needs to be put towards narrowing that gap via how you're communicating the concepts. The guy with a two way miss spanning several fairways doesn't need to be asked "do you understand impact?" like it's the beginning of an infomercial, IMO he needs an explanation aimed at why all the compensations and misalignments/positions he has gotten himself in to are causing the problems, how to neutralize them, and all with an eye on how advice or instruction from the internet and whether it has been misunderstood, misapplied, or is just straight up misinformation. 
 

@Valtiel this is the exact same dialog that I had been hoping to get with you for quite some time now so I am glad that you took your time to respond and it is much appreciated as I am sure that with the combination of our strategies that we can really help those looking for true lasting improvement.  As I think you already know I play golf both right and left handed and am also an Exercise Science and Engineering guy so I am basically my own lab rat which has taught me a ton over the years.  I played athletically right handed and it took me 6 years to break 90, and I played mathematically left handed and it took me 6 months to break 90 and within 18 months I shot by best ever score of 1 over left handed.  

 

This was very eye opening for me as it demonstrated that knowing impact was more important than knowing my swing by orders of magnitude.  The very same videos that I post at nauseum on here are exactly the same videos that provided the clarity that greatly steepened my learning curve. The problem was that it took me months to truly understand them because I didn't have anyone to explain them to me.  That being said the more and more that I understood impact, the more clarity it provided for me as an athlete because it taught me that often I have to override feeling "comfortable" over the ball and this is very important because the body is in constant flux and likely will not feel the same from day to day thus monitoring body parts is not reliable.  

 

It also made me much much better at interpreting golf instruction because the instructi0n MUST match the match or it will not work and is not valid.  The math that governs golf is actually not very dense looking back at things but in the moment it seems overwhelming.  Knowing impact is knowing the answer to the test, but just knowing the answer does not demonstrate depth of knowledge.  If you know that all that governs every shot you hit is d plane, club face at impact, low point orientation, and speed injected into the shot you can begin to truly learn golf and use that knowledge to your advantage. Especially since all of these parameters except for speed injected are set in your pre shot routine and as you address the ball.  

 

This is precisely why I do not mention swing motion in the beginning and that is because most have never truly hit a ball with maximum leverage before. I am working with a +3 handicap right now and I set him up to hit a fade with driver, and just told him to swing freely and trust that I am putting him in the correct location in relation to the ball.  Right after impact he looks at me and says that he has never hit a shot with that much leverage ever in his life...and that is coming from someone that plays golf at a very high level, thus I assume that anyone at a lower level most likely has never truly struck a golf ball with maximum efficiency.  In my opinion in the beginning it is more important that you do not compromise your swing motion and that you get into a position and hit a ball with max efficiency as quickly as possible and that is because many "flaws" will smooth themselves out by just hitting some shots with max leverage. But just because you hit a shot with max leverage in no way means that you understand what I did to get you in position you to do it.  That is where my lil trash can lids and models come into play.  

 

It seems like too much too soon, but I have found no other way that truly gets you to the endgame of fully understanding impact and knowing how to manipulate things on the fly as you go about your practice or play.  For example, the video posted below is actually d plane and low point fundamentals explained in a very easy to understand way, but if you don't know how to truly interpret information you will stray away from it the second you have a bad day not realizing that you were on the right path. 

 

I time stamped it to start at the information that I want to point out as the example:

 

This is precisely what I mean by being out of position to the ball is 99% of golfer's problems, and that is because there is only ONE point along your swing arc that matches your intentions and the ball must be present at that location or your are playing a miss, and that video demonstrates this very well but my depth of knowledges instantly knows that this is exactly how golf should be taught from an athletic perspective and that is because it precisely matches the math of things, therefore it is valid.  

 

I agree with much of what you teach as I understand what you are saying in all aspects, but like you do me, I disagree with the timing that it is being taught as I feel that it cannot be truly grasped and understood and applied until after the athlete truly understands impact.  I also see your instruction as refinements to finish off things and fully maximize efficiency whereas the information I provide should actually be day one information because it is the foundation of golf and is the same for everyone whereas grip, stance, and posture, actually are not fundamental to golf as there are many ways to do each of them so that is why I do not worry about that in the beginning.  Am I making sense?

 

I truly believe that we are in lock step and are very passionate about the game and providing the tools for improvement to those looking for it but as I stated before in other threads, my information is the gatekeeper, and no one should be able to make it to your information without truly grasping my information first just like we do in regards to education at school as you must show proficiency at a lower level to move onward to more advanced lessons. I also notice how you are praised for your extended and very detailed and precise posts while I get a very negative reaction in most cases and this demonstrates to me that the person does not understand what I am stating enough to even ask questions to receive clarification but in time the knowledge I post will become mainstream and someone with a bigger name will take credit for it as I am starting to see it more and more within coaching content within the past year though I have been banging on keyboards for over a decade now! Nevertheless I appreciate your response and I hope that you will appreciate mine and we can start a dialog as I feel that it would be very useful to the forum as a whole.