AMG video on : setting the record straight on our golf swing analysis

[betarhoalphadelta]

29 minutes ago, NikeGolferTX said:

How do we know for a fact that tour averages of mechanics within the golf swing is the best or most optimal way to swing?

 

 

How do we keep focusing on "tour averages" when the first 1/4 of the entire video was related to the fact that AMG doesn't use "tour averages" in instruction? 

 

[JayMas]

2 minutes ago, NikeGolferTX said:

3D is amazing. I would like to step out of an elementary view and start looking at with more complexity though.

 

The best players may be good from decision making, short game and other factors. It’s extremely complex. A player that wins might have worse GIR, driver and iron shot dispersion than another player who doesn’t win because his short game is amazing.

I think what I mean is more related to how the best players in the world strike the ball. They achieve ideal ball flights, spin numbers, contact the ball on the part of the face that does the best stuff, are the most consistent with impact, etc. So I think studying them, and measuring them to see what leads to that is more what I mean by "the best players in the world." Certainly what I'm saying and you're saying equate to "wins the most as well." 

[Zitlow]

Have Nesbit, Sasho, Dr. Kwon and other highly educated PhDs come to a consensus on a swing model to apply the maximum amount of energy to a golf ball with the least amount of effort? 

[ALIF]

3 hours ago, MPStrat said:

Ya I agree. After I watched the YouTube video I looked at the comments section and it was like 98% “we love you guys!! You are the best!! “We are naming our twins to be Mike and Shawn and my wife is getting an AMG tramp stamp in honor of you guys!!” 

 

To be honest even if don’t like a video, I don’t comment on golf social media posts. It’s not a great place for debate. Plus I sort of consider someone’s social media marketing posts their place of business and I wouldn’t want someone crapping on my front door, so I don’t do it. 

 

But it’s a bit narcissistic and overly sensitive to make it such a big deal when 98% of the comments come from their fanbase telling them how they are the smartest and most handsome human beings to ever exist.

It’s obvious from many of your previous posts in this and other threads that you do not like AMG. Great. We get it. I am fairly neutral on them. I think they put out good information. I don’t know them personally so I cannot judge them. I think for one to say that the way they acted in that video or doing the video was narcissistic is a very large stretch. I did not get that from it at all. They came off very sincere and matter of fact without being condescending or arrogant. I guess that might’ve just been your confirmational bias kicking in. That’s ok. You’re entitled to your OPINION. Doesn’t mean that their content isn’t accurate or potentially enlightening. 

[Zitlow]

4 hours ago, MPStrat said:

Ya I agree. After I watched the YouTube video I looked at the comments section and it was like 98% “we love you guys!! You are the best!! “We are naming our twins to be Mike and Shawn and my wife is getting an AMG tramp stamp in honor of you guys!!” 

 

To be honest even if don’t like a video, I don’t comment on golf social media posts. It’s not a great place for debate. Plus I sort of consider someone’s social media marketing posts their place of business and I wouldn’t want someone crapping on my front door, so I don’t do it. 

 

But it’s a bit narcissistic and overly sensitive to make it such a big deal when 98% of the comments come from their fanbase telling them how they are the smartest and most handsome human beings to ever exist.

 

Sycophantic suck-ups 

[NikeGolferTX]

45 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

How do we keep focusing on "tour averages" when the first 1/4 of the entire video was related to the fact that AMG doesn't use "tour averages" in instruction? 

 

At 2:30 he’s talking about averages and how measuring how far the deviation from that is a good thing and it’s a “reference tool”. I’m asking if that dataset could be wildly different over the span of 50 years.

IMO an inch in deviation of lateral movement or how a shaft pitches out for example would be massive.

Edited November 3, 2023 by NikeGolferTX

[Nels55]

14 minutes ago, Zitlow said:

Have Nesbit, Sasho, Dr. Kwon and other highly educated PhDs come to a consensus on a swing model to apply the maximum amount of energy to a golf ball with the least amount of effort? 

I do not believe so.  They most likely agree on more then they disagree on.  Science works that way and over time theories are developed and accepted or rejected.  Eventfully the golf swing will get sorted out.

[MPStrat]

31 minutes ago, ALIF said:

Doesn’t mean that their content isn’t accurate or potentially enlightening. 

I have said dozens of times that I like some of their videos. I don’t know how many more times I have to say it.

[betarhoalphadelta]

22 minutes ago, NikeGolferTX said:

At 2:30 he’s talking about averages and how measuring how far the deviation from that is a good thing and it’s a “reference tool”. I’m asking if that dataset could be wildly different over the span of 50 years.

 

And that's fair. This is science. They're performing analysis by looking at measured data based on the best golfers currently in the world. I don't think they're misrepresenting that and saying it's the only--or even the best--way to swing. 50 years from now, it's possible that dataset will have drifted considerably. But this is what the best players TODAY are doing. 

 

Averages can have their place in that discussion. Understanding standard deviation has to have a place in that discussion if you're looking at averages. Understanding matchups has to have a place in that discussion if you're looking at why some players deviate from average. If you're looking at why DJ's swing and Rory's swing and Rahm's swing and JT's swing all have differences that deviate from average but all work very well might be due to matchups. 

 

What I think is the key is that with the use of 3D, what is being learned is that what elite players today are ACTUALLY doing is not what we BELIEVED they were doing before 3D. And I think AMG would agree that's true whether you're looking at individual swings or tour averages. 

 

That last bit is the important part. We have better and more accurate tools of understanding those swings than we did before 3D, and it means that there were misconceptions that we're learning were misconceptions. That's all it is. 

[MPStrat]

2 hours ago, airjammer said:

I hope for humanities sake those accounts are bots otherwise the amount of arse kissing that is going on those comments would make an instagram model’s OF page comments look tame😛

It’s creepy. I can somewhat understand guys shooting their shot with the IG models but they lose me when they do it to golf coaches😂

 

It’s a weird phenomenon. It has been known to get that way in here before too, it used to be much worse a couple years ago than it is now. People look at some of these golf coaches like stars. I don’t even think some of these crazy dudes care what content is created, the allegiance to their their leader(s) becomes a religion for them and they are going to defend it to the death. I think some of it is our tribal nature as humans but some of these fans take it to another level and literally simp on these guys. 

[NikeGolferTX]

1 minute ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

And that's fair. This is science. They're performing analysis by looking at measured data based on the best golfers currently in the world. I don't think they're misrepresenting that and saying it's the only--or even the best--way to swing. 50 years from now, it's possible that dataset will have drifted considerably. But this is what the best players TODAY are doing. 

 

Averages can have their place in that discussion. Understanding standard deviation has to have a place in that discussion if you're looking at averages. Understanding matchups has to have a place in that discussion if you're looking at why some players deviate from average. If you're looking at why DJ's swing and Rory's swing and Rahm's swing and JT's swing all have differences that deviate from average but all work very well might be due to matchups. 

 

What I think is the key is that with the use of 3D, what is being learned is that what elite players today are ACTUALLY doing is not what we BELIEVED they were doing before 3D. And I think AMG would agree that's true whether you're looking at individual swings or tour averages. 

 

That last bit is the important part. We have better and more accurate tools of understanding those swings than we did before 3D, and it means that there were misconceptions that we're learning were misconceptions. That's all it is. 

Makes sense! I agree.

 

I think matchups are key. I personally shallow out a lot and I like the way it feels. Knowing how to make that particular movement function is key. 

 

I don’t really know what AMG’s opinion truly is. I probably deviate quite a bit from the norm in certain aspects of my swing from their dataset: excessive shallowing for example. I don’t know if they’d want me steeper because of that or if they’d want to match up that shallowing move.

[AddinsonLoftIII]

Dr Panglos, I recommend that you keep on going to the doc for your scans. Although in the best of all possible worlds, you probably shouldn't have to go in the first place. (Seriously though and, as it were, candidly, Monte -  good health to you sir, however you so choose to go about maintaining or re-acquiring it.) Health and illness, doctors and patients...why, here is another Frenchman, Michel de Montaigne, who comes to mind  - it was his view, based in part no doubt on bitter experience, that every man should become his own doctor. (Not very good healers in France back then, it must be conceeded.) As it pertains to golf, and more specifically to the rather opaque nexus of consumer tech, data, instruction, and golfers, a little bit of the spirit of Montaigne might not be a bad thing, what with his being associated with that school of thought known as skepticism. But - what do I know?

[AddinsonLoftIII]

13 hours ago, MonteScheinblum said:

You are correct, the next time I hurt my knee…..no X-rays or MRI.

 

If my chest hurts…….no ekg.

 

Don’t get me started on that voodoo blood work nonsense.

 

Just strap a leech on me and I’ll be fine.

 

[virtuoso]

55 minutes ago, MPStrat said:

I have said dozens of times that I like some of their videos. I don’t know how many more times I have to say it.

I think at least one more time before this thread burns itself out.

[me05501]

2 hours ago, JayMas said:

Could be wrong, but my guess would be that the poster in question also engaged with AMG on other channels with the same ideas.

 

In reading the OG post, and the follow up a few pages back on "how we should discuss this with them" I think the bigger problem is the insanely sanctimonious nature of the OG post while also ironically dripping with a lot of pure ignorance.

 

I just tend to think that over-confident ignorance is a far bigger problem than a calm, reasoned response via video. Maybe a little theatric for AMG, but none of the actual substance in the video was derogatory, mean, etc. Pretty much just educational stuff and a good discussion with Neff.

 

Disagreeing with literal experts based on nothing factual and being a bit of a dick about it is just never something I'm personally gonna be on board with, so tough for me to see AMG as "bullies." Looks much more like arrogance and ignorance was challenged rationally.

 

 

I didn't mean to imply that AMG was bullying anyone. The posters who keep goading golfarb to defend himself seem to be pissing in the wind, to me at least. 

[jonsnow]

39 minutes ago, AddinsonLoftIII said:

Dr Panglos, I recommend that you keep on going to the doc for your scans. Although in the best of all possible worlds, you probably shouldn't have to go in the first place. (Seriously though and, as it were, candidly, Monte -  good health to you sir, however you so choose to go about maintaining or re-acquiring it.) Health and illness, doctors and patients...why, here is another Frenchman, Michel de Montaigne, who comes to mind  - it was his view, based in part no doubt on bitter experience, that every man should become his own doctor. (Not very good healers in France back then, it must be conceeded.) As it pertains to golf, and more specifically to the rather opaque nexus of consumer tech, data, instruction, and golfers, a little bit of the spirit of Montaigne might not be a bad thing, what with his being associated with that school of thought known as skepticism. But - what do I know?

I am skeptical about skepticism...

[Nels55]

46 minutes ago, AddinsonLoftIII said:

Dr Panglos, I recommend that you keep on going to the doc for your scans. Although in the best of all possible worlds, you probably shouldn't have to go in the first place. (Seriously though and, as it were, candidly, Monte -  good health to you sir, however you so choose to go about maintaining or re-acquiring it.) Health and illness, doctors and patients...why, here is another Frenchman, Michel de Montaigne, who comes to mind  - it was his view, based in part no doubt on bitter experience, that every man should become his own doctor. (Not very good healers in France back then, it must be conceeded.) As it pertains to golf, and more specifically to the rather opaque nexus of consumer tech, data, instruction, and golfers, a little bit of the spirit of Montaigne might not be a bad thing, what with his being associated with that school of thought known as skepticism. But - what do I know?

Unfortunately most people will not do well being their own doctor.  Most self learned golf swings are not so good.  Perhaps the old saying that a lawyer who takes his own case has a fool for a client is appropriate...  That said it is important to understand enough to be able to self correct when things go wrong while playing so your point is like a lot of things both correct and incorrect, it depends the application.

[virtuoso]

42 minutes ago, Nels55 said:

Unfortunately most people will not do well being their own doctor.  Most self learned golf swings are not so good.  Perhaps the old saying that a lawyer who takes his own case has a fool for a client is appropriate...  That said it is important to understand enough to be able to self correct when things go wrong while playing so your point is like a lot of things both correct and incorrect, it depends the application.

I wouldn't take Addison too seriously if I were you. Not sure what username he usually posts under.

 

Edit, nevermind, maybe he is a real person....but he talks weird and fancy.

Edited November 3, 2023 by virtuoso

[MK7Golf21]

2 hours ago, MPStrat said:

It’s creepy. I can somewhat understand guys shooting their shot with the IG models but they lose me when they do it to golf coaches😂

 

It’s a weird phenomenon. It has been known to get that way in here before too, it used to be much worse a couple years ago than it is now. People look at some of these golf coaches like stars. I don’t even think some of these crazy dudes care what content is created, the allegiance to their their leader(s) becomes a religion for them and they are going to defend it to the death. I think some of it is our tribal nature as humans but some of these fans take it to another level and literally simp on these guys. 

 

I agree, I'll just say that much

Edited November 3, 2023 by MK7Golf21

[Nels55]

33 minutes ago, virtuoso said:

I wouldn't take Addison too seriously if I were you. Not sure what username he usually posts under.

 

Edit, nevermind, maybe he is a real person....but he talks weird and fancy.

Serious?  Nope.

[Chunkitgood]

Data is data.  Understanding data is a whole other world.  From what I have seen, the AMG guys just don’t have the intellectual wherewithal to understand or the honesty to admit the limits of the data they present.  From the first of the video I saw I wished they would shut up and give more time to the videos of good golfers.

 

It’s an old flaw in science to act as if only the things that can be measured are what matter or even that they are all that exist.  What matters in teaching the golf swing is not how the pieces move but what moves them.  If they have a technology that displays that, somebody let me know.

[RichieHunt]

9 hours ago, Red4282 said:

Oof. AMG may help alot of golfers get better, but this was cringeworthy and borderline childish.  1) Yall gotta learn to let criticism roll off your back. 2) Nobody is perfect. 3) Some of you have way too much time on your hands.

 

I have no problem addressing criticism and for the most part, had no problem with the way they addressed it.  I just don't think it was a smart idea to clickbait people like that.  If you're trying to go with the honesty and credibility route, keep things honest and credible...don't deceive the viewer with clickbait.  It not only makes you look dishonest, but makes you look desperate.  

But addressing criticism is often times warranted because the criticism may be taken as fact without a rebuttal.  Here they were explaining why they use averages, but also how they use standard deviation.  And basically understanding that they're not working in a world of certainty, but in a world of probability.  

 

Also the explanation of how accurate GEARS is and why other systems have their flaws as well.  They didn't really mention it, but the wired systems are HEAVY and can great affect how the golfer swings the club.  Although the same could be said with GEARS' markers on the club (compared to ENSO's which are so light you don't even feel it).  

The good thing about 2D is that it is readily available.  Particularly today with people having quality cameras on their phones.  3D isn't nearly as affordable or accessible.  But I will say that if you ever get on 3D, you'll often find that when you are looking to make changes to your swing and what the pros are actually doing you'll find is *easier* and *simpler* than what your misconceptions of what you're trying to do.  2D is skewed for a variety of reasons, but the primary reason (IMO) is that it gets very skewed because of the body pivot and tilts and how that changes of the view of the arms int he golf swing.  

What I see with the best ballstrikers' swings on 3D is:

1) Their moves are much more simpler and easier to make

2) They give themselves enough time to get into the positions they want to achieve

3) They give themselves reasons and time to rotate

Most amateurs do the exact opposite.  And the game becomes frustrating because they are trying to do something impossibly complicated and they can't do it or do it with any consistency.

 

 

 

 

RH

[MonteScheinblum]

9 minutes ago, RichieHunt said:

 

I have no problem addressing criticism and for the most part, had no problem with the way they addressed it.  I just don't think it was a smart idea to clickbait people like that.  If you're trying to go with the honesty and credibility route, keep things honest and credible...don't deceive the viewer with clickbait.  It not only makes you look dishonest, but makes you look desperate.  

But addressing criticism is often times warranted because the criticism may be taken as fact without a rebuttal.  Here they were explaining why they use averages, but also how they use standard deviation.  And basically understanding that they're not working in a world of certainty, but in a world of probability.  

 

Also the explanation of how accurate GEARS is and why other systems have their flaws as well.  They didn't really mention it, but the wired systems are HEAVY and can great affect how the golfer swings the club.  Although the same could be said with GEARS' markers on the club (compared to ENSO's which are so light you don't even feel it).  

The good thing about 2D is that it is readily available.  Particularly today with people having quality cameras on their phones.  3D isn't nearly as affordable or accessible.  But I will say that if you ever get on 3D, you'll often find that when you are looking to make changes to your swing and what the pros are actually doing you'll find is *easier* and *simpler* than what your misconceptions of what you're trying to do.  2D is skewed for a variety of reasons, but the primary reason (IMO) is that it gets very skewed because of the body pivot and tilts and how that changes of the view of the arms int he golf swing.  

What I see with the best ballstrikers' swings on 3D is:

1) Their moves are much more simpler and easier to make

2) They give themselves enough time to get into the positions they want to achieve

3) They give themselves reasons and time to rotate

Most amateurs do the exact opposite.  And the game becomes frustrating because they are trying to do something impossibly complicated and they can't do it or do it with any consistency.

 

 

 

 

RH

So true.  Ams have the idea that pros do more complicated moves.  My question is always….Do you think these guys have been on the range since age 8 thinking they’re elite and can do super human moves, or are they finding the easiest way to get it done.  Not all of them find the easiest way aesthetically, but when you measure good to great players with tech, that look way more similar than to the make eye or even slo mo video.

It’s much harder to hit the ball stuck on the right side, extending the lead wrist, lunging toward the target, early extending, stalling and flipping.

 

Thats why ams are tired after hitting balls for 10 minutes and why better players look smooth and easy, which then makes ams think they can keep their crappy swing if they just have balance and smooth tempo like the pros.

 

They look of smooth tempo and balance come from efficient moves, not slow ones.

 

[CasualLie]

This thread is exhibit A on why golfers generally have not improved much.  As a "student" any time spent on raising pitchforks against internet marketing, data interpretation, phrases like it's been measured, and on and on...is that much less time spent on what really matters, owning your own swing.

 

I thought it was so obvious, as in automatic, that any social media golf instruction is largely marketing.  Hence, all the one upmanship in screen titles - best this, best that, most important, blah, blah, blah.  Tiger was mostly right, stop watching YouTube.  If I meet anyone on the first tee claiming they learned everything through YouTube, then I'll gladly give them two a side and take their money.  

 

I also thought it was obvious that people would know enough about golf that they could discern between what is marketing / quick tip, what is a "name" instructor sharing their ideas / interpretations as part of (wait for it) marketing and/or sharing general ideas.

 

I mean, who really takes the YouTube, IG, Tiktok posts as gospel?  Coming onto a forum and posting ad nauseum yelling at the sky over golf theory battle lines is not "discussion"; it's pretty ridiculous.  And debate?  Seriously?  Are we talking a real debate or one of those sound bite presidential farces?

 

Even if we are talking about the more instructional videos on the lesson tee, and there are some interesting ones, it is still meant for that student and maybe there's something for you to think about, but the good instructors will even say it's info for that specific student.  

 

So really, why all the fud?  It's nutty to see the pearl clutching over what a golf instructor says.

 

I've had lessons from several of the "names" out there and while there may be some small swing theory differences, there were a lot more similarities.  The differences didn't show up in theory but instead communication styles, ability to relate to different student levels, and having many different ways/angles to essentially say the same thing.  Maybe I'm lucky but what I found they all had in common was great swing knowledge that benefited me, great attitudes, didn't try to "sell me" something I didn't need, did not bash any other instructor, and never referred to their own YouTube content was something I should watch.

 

It's crazy to watch some of the disparaging of other instructors, relentless disparaging, by people who have never even met the instructor let alone take a lesson.

 

[Albatross Dreamer]

1 hour ago, Chunkitgood said:

Data is data.  Understanding data is a whole other world.  From what I have seen, the AMG guys just don’t have the intellectual wherewithal to understand or the honesty to admit the limits of the data they present.  From the first of the video I saw I wished they would shut up and give more time to the videos of good golfers.

 

It’s an old flaw in science to act as if only the things that can be measured are what matter or even that they are all that exist.  What matters in teaching the golf swing is not how the pieces move but what moves them.  If they have a technology that displays that, somebody let me know.

People often forget that there's multiple tiers of factors, and just because someone is an expert in one area doesn't mean they're an expert in another. For example in the golf swing with their model there's expertise in (I'm just typing this offhand so forgive me if not precise):

 

1- design of GEARS

2- Data capture using GEARS

3- GEARS data interpretation

4- Interpretation of what the data means in terms of practical application

5- Biomechanical factors creating the data you see in GEARS

6- Applying the practical application to real people

7- Troubleshooting when an intervention doesn't have the desired effect

8- Creating match ups that fit a specific person's strengths and limitations

9- Knowing biomechanical cause and effects (offshoot of 8 )

 

Furthermore with the golf swing there's experts within small parts (i.e. GRFs). AMG isn't experts in all of these areas, nor could they be. Ideally we're able to take the things that AMG does well and plug it into a larger model that synthesizes knowledge from each discipline to push the total knowledge base forward as it's really easy for one silo to think they have everything figured out but when matched up with another discipline the hypothesis falls apart.

 

(AMG might do this for themselves too, I don't know them so won't make assumptions either way).

[Albatross Dreamer]

50 minutes ago, CasualLie said:

 

 

I've had lessons from several of the "names" out there and while there may be some small swing theory differences, there were a lot more similarities.  The differences didn't show up in theory but instead communication styles, ability to relate to different student levels, and having many different ways/angles to essentially say the same thing.  Maybe I'm lucky but what I found they all had in common was great swing knowledge that benefited me, great attitudes, didn't try to "sell me" something I didn't need, did not bash any other instructor, and never referred to their own YouTube content was something I should watch.

 

It's crazy to watch some of the disparaging of other instructors, relentless disparaging, by people who have never even met the instructor let alone take a lesson.

 

To add to this you could take lessons from two AWESOME reputable instructors and for whatever reason one's advice worked and another didn't. Each instructor has strengths and weaknesses, so just because one wasn't able to help you doesn't mean they suck, but just didn't have the "fix" you needed at that time.

[virtuoso]

1 hour ago, MonteScheinblum said:

...which then makes ams think they can keep their crappy swing if they just have balance and smooth tempo like the pros.

I love it when a student hits a bad shot and says, "I did the good thing but I just got too quick again."...........um, no, you did your normal bad thing again.

 

...and then....."If I could ever just slow down and not try to kill it, I'd hit it so much better"........nope, you'd hit just as crooked but shorter.

[Nels55]

1 hour ago, virtuoso said:

I love it when a student hits a bad shot and says, "I did the good thing but I just got too quick again."...........um, no, you did your normal bad thing again.

 

...and then....."If I could ever just slow down and not try to kill it, I'd hit it so much better"........nope, you'd hit just as crooked but shorter.

Have you ever had a student who's swing was over as quickly as John Rahm's"

 

[MonteScheinblum]

1 hour ago, Nels55 said:

Have you ever had a student who's swing was over as quickly as John Rahm's"

 

You kind of have to throw this out, as he developed this swing due to a severe physical limitation from a birth defect.

[Nels55]

5 minutes ago, MonteScheinblum said:

You kind of have to throw this out, as he developed this swing due to a severe physical limitation from a birth defect.

I was just trying to show that swinging fast is not the problem that a lot of golfers think it is.  Sloooow back and keep yer noggin down!