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

[iacas]

1 hour ago, airjammer said:

These individuals said they answer every question that someone submits in the comment section and I submitted the question in the video in which they stated essentially the arms stay on the right side of the body and the pivot gets them to the ball and how this relates to their video not too long ago about the lead arm coming off the chest in the downswing…I got nothing.

 

What's your question? Lead arm adduction goes from ~80 to ~60 and back to ~80 in most PGA Tour players. Their hips are often 40° open or so, so at impact, their hands are on the "trail side" of their bodies. Their left shoulder is also slightly more protracted than it is at setup, which helps explain why their chest can be ~20° open but they can still be 80° with the adduction…

 

Lots of ams, on the other hand, go from 80° to ~45-50° and then struggle to get back to 70° or 75° let alone 80° at impact. Many who do have to stall the body and hit with a chest that's at low single digits, not 20° or so.

 

25 minutes ago, MonteScheinblum said:

Actually most instructors enjoy the heated discussion.

 

Definitely.

 

25 minutes ago, MonteScheinblum said:

All the instructors eventually leave this place because they get tired of the constant unprovoked personal attacks and comments from people who don’t like their ideas.

 

Or other things… 😉 

 

25 minutes ago, MonteScheinblum said:

To me those comments are like the people who turn wide from the inside left turn lane and then honk at you and flip you off.  Shake my head and laugh at their lack of self awareness and bitterness, ignore and move on. 

 

Thank goodness for ignore lists.

 

1 minute ago, Jayjay_theweim_guy said:

I've not watched the AMG video in question, but on its face as described here, and in the email I received, it comes off as awfully damned petty.  A classic example of 'punching down'.  Like, really?  You both don't have anything better to do?

 

I get that. I see what you mean.

 

But… put yourself in their shoes. What are the advantages, or the perks, or pros, of just replying now and then. I'm sure it was mildly cathartic. It helps to stop those who say "see, they don't even have a response to this!" It sets the record straight, and can serve as a bit of a reference that they can point to in the future, too.

 

And given their standing, who could they respond to where it isn't "punching down?"

 

I'm using your words, but you could call it something else too. You could look at it and say "oh, man, @golfarb1 is some dude on the Internet and these guys took the time to respond to him! How cool?" Because they didn't really do much "punching." They didn't call him names or anything, they didn't mock him or anything… they just replied to what he said.

 

1 minute ago, Jayjay_theweim_guy said:

Yep, golfarb made some comments about their statistical analysis.  May or may not be valid; I haven't delved into it.  And you, AMG, Monte, etc...must get incensed having to constantly deal with a bunch of Internet know-nothings taking shots at your teachings.  I understand that.

 

"Incensed" is far too strong, but yeah, it can be kind of annoying. I don't need "agreement." But I like to have an understanding, and in @golfarb1's case specifically, I don't think you ever even get to that point.

And, yeah, he was wildly off base on a number of things he said.

 

1 minute ago, Jayjay_theweim_guy said:

Ultimately, though: who gives a $&÷t if Joe Random has a problem with your teaching?

 

So we should just never have any debates or discussion?

 

You may have missed my post above where I like to debate things (or Monte's where he pointed out a similar thing) because it keeps us sharp, because "Eureka" moments never seem to come after someone says "I think you're right," etc. Why don't top-level instructors like Mike and Michael and Shaun get to debate or discuss things, too?

 

1 minute ago, Jayjay_theweim_guy said:

Who has the professional business, the hundreds to tens of thousands of paying students and subscribers for your content? Not him. Why then give the guy legitimacy by calling him out in person and entertaining his point of view?

 

Because they're not just replying to him. And it gives them something to point back to in the future, when more similar arguments are made.

 

1 minute ago, Jayjay_theweim_guy said:

Which is the connotation you should be trying to avoid.

 

That's your invention. There are plenty of other valid reasons to occasionally reply.

 

1 minute ago, Jayjay_theweim_guy said:

Now, I'll go watch the video. (As I sit here, waiting for this stupid case of Covid to go away.)

 

Get well, man.

 

P.S. Another post for @me05501 and others to skip over. Fine by me. 😉 

[iacas]

Also, I wanted to post what he had said, here in this topic, as I don't think anyone's done that yet.

 

On 10/16/2023 at 11:04 PM, golfarb1 said:

1. Use of AVERAGES by themselves can easily give deceptive and misleading results.
2. CONFIRMATION  BIAS -having a preconceived idea that they are trying to prove rather than letting the data alone reach that idea.
3. Questions  about where they place their sensors and consequently what specific information is actually being shown.
4. Misuse of technology 

 

I'm not going to defend them on each of those points because that was the entire point of the video, so they've already done it. But I did want to put them all here, so that perhaps the discussion may be about their responses to those four things.

[Soloman1]

Truly not trying to anal here, but the measurements show the wrist is moving toward extension. It’s not extending.

 

Releasing flexion is probably a better way to describe it.

 

——-

 

If you’re sitting down with someone and having a discussion, the language is usually less dogmatic than the internet.

 

I like someone to ask why I say something. Beliefs don’t need any evidence or explanation. You simply believe it. I don’t want to just believe something because everyone says it.

 

Remember the ball starting toward the path and curving toward the face? It might have been the most parroted myth ever in golf. Technology provided the evidence otherwise. Or, the ball rides up the club face?

 

If you have evidence and information contrary to what I have, let’s figure out why or how the evidence is different. If the evidence says A instead of B, I’ll accept A until evidence proves it otherwise.

 

 

[MonteScheinblum]

34 minutes ago, MK7Golf21 said:

 

That's true. Kind of like the lead wrist extending in the downswing on pretty much all the pro's measured. Then it becomes what is actually causing that for a golfer. Some could feel like they are using a prosendr the entire downswing but still have extension going on while some could feel active casting, both hitting it good. 

Correct and I’ll do you one better.  There was one exception in that case.  Berger.

 

I asked 3 different biomechanics PHD’s, one from UCLA who knows nothing about golf, all said it’s impossible for the arms to fire first, if the feet are connected to the ground, and there is gravity.

 

Then I asked five different 3-D experts, excluding AMG, because they are a point of contention, who have captured tens of thousands of swings.

 

I asked him how many times have you seen the arms fire early.  The answer…

 

 

[MonteScheinblum]

17 minutes ago, Soloman1 said:

Truly not trying to anal here, but the measurements show the wrist is moving toward extension. It’s not extending.

 

Releasing flexion is probably a better way to describe it.

 

——-

 

If you’re sitting down with someone and having a discussion, the language is usually less dogmatic than the internet.

 

I like someone to ask why I say something. Beliefs don’t need any evidence or explanation. You simply believe it. I don’t want to just believe something because everyone says it.

 

Remember the ball starting toward the path and curving toward the face? It might have been the most parroted myth ever in golf. Technology provided the evidence otherwise. Or, the ball rides up the club face?

 

If you have evidence and information contrary to what I have, let’s figure out why or how the evidence is different. If the evidence says A instead of B, I’ll accept A until evidence proves it otherwise.

 

 

Yes

[Albatross Dreamer]

18 minutes ago, Soloman1 said:

Truly not trying to anal here, but the measurements show the wrist is moving toward extension. It’s not extending.

 

Releasing flexion is probably a better way to describe it.

 

——-

 

If you’re sitting down with someone and having a discussion, the language is usually less dogmatic than the internet.

 

I like someone to ask why I say something. Beliefs don’t need any evidence or explanation. You simply believe it. I don’t want to just believe something because everyone says it.

 

Remember the ball starting toward the path and curving toward the face? It might have been the most parroted myth ever in golf. Technology provided the evidence otherwise. Or, the ball rides up the club face?

 

If you have evidence and information contrary to what I have, let’s figure out why or how the evidence is different. If the evidence says A instead of B, I’ll accept A until evidence proves it otherwise.

 

 

Most people, including many golf instructors, don't understand relative motion vs real motion occurring at the joint/muscle/whatever in question. I believe a lot of misunderstandings occur as a result of this since it can be a very confusing concept that can be tough to convey.

 

I think one of the difficulties with writing online is trying to cram too much into a small space. Things like forums are great for smaller discussion, but often terrible for nuance vs being able to discuss something with someone verbally. Then both sides get annoyed with the other as a result and everything goes to poop. So it's a good thing the golf swing doesn't have any complexity or nuance (insert sarcasm emoji that doesn't exist here)

Edited October 31, 2023 by Albatross Dreamer

[gripandrip]

14 hours ago, MonteScheinblum said:

 

This video was an eye opener. I shared with a few playing partners with similar reaction. Very clearly articulated and explained.

 

[Albatross Dreamer]

2 hours ago, me05501 said:

There are so many different styles of instruction (and marketing) out there. What is it that prevents viewers from being able to say "that's not for me" and scrolling down to find something that may better suit your style of learning? 

 

I can see AMG's content being very appealing to a certain type of learner: the engineer, the surgeon, the person who wants to have things fully explained in exhaustive detail and the guy who is obsessed with doing things the way the pros do it. The guy who chooses fly fishing over bass fishing. And maybe others. I'm not judging. 

 

If it isn't the right thing for you, then great. There are so many other options. Everyone is different. 

 

Personally I can't absorb any swing-related instruction that relies too heavily on physiological terminology. Adduction, flexion, extension, pronation, etc. Sure, I can stop listening/reading and take the necessary time to understand exactly what is meant by each term just like I could eventually parse out something written in a foreign language. But more likely I'm going to bypass it altogether and finds something that suits me better. 

 

We should view the instruction idea marketplace like a buffet. Take what we need and leave the rest. 

 

Instead a lot of people seem to treat it like a row of high-end restaurants while viewing themselves as the self-appointed food critic from the NYT! 

To be honest I don't see most of their videos being that helpful from a "putting it into action standpoint". For me I see it being helpful to know what "should" be happening in the golf swing. Then can use instruction to try to put it into action. I'm speaking primarily about the videos that show pro vs am without much in terms of drills or how to actually put it into action. 

 

Personally I don't watch them much anymore as the videos come across as being presented by "motion capture experts" vs golf or even movement experts (I'm not saying they don't know these things, simply what the videos feel like). They tried to say "they don't use averages", but they to me it seemed they do as I always thought they could do better at mentioning the ranges or standard deviations in my brief time watching them (which I might be wrong about). It'd also be cool for them to do cause and effect in terms of how different swings compare (i.e. what are the ways Rahm & Rory's swings differ). Especially if you look at things like how different body shapes do in terms of strengths & limitations sort of along the lines of Mike Adams, Terry Rowles, or Scott Lynn. But as mentioned below that might not be the goal of their content.

 

I don't say this as a criticism of AMG, as I have no idea what they're trying to accomplish with their channel. For example, their strategy might be focusing primarily on GEARS to show expertise in that area and as a marker differentiator which then drives in-person or online paying business. And to be honest it doesn't make business sense for any golf instructor to give away all the goods for free. I'd imagine when AMG is doing actual lessons they look at GEARS then customize the advice to what the client needs. 

[JayMas]

1 hour ago, Albatross Dreamer said:

To be honest I don't see most of their videos being that helpful from a "putting it into action standpoint". For me I see it being helpful to know what "should" be happening in the golf swing. Then can use instruction to try to put it into action. I'm speaking primarily about the videos that show pro vs am without much in terms of drills or how to actually put it into action. 

 

Personally I don't watch them much anymore as the videos come across as being presented by "motion capture experts" vs golf or even movement experts (I'm not saying they don't know these things, simply what the videos feel like). They tried to say "they don't use averages", but they to me it seemed they do as I always thought they could do better at mentioning the ranges or standard deviations in my brief time watching them (which I might be wrong about). It'd also be cool for them to do cause and effect in terms of how different swings compare (i.e. what are the ways Rahm & Rory's swings differ). Especially if you look at things like how different body shapes do in terms of strengths & limitations sort of along the lines of Mike Adams, Terry Rowles, or Scott Lynn. But as mentioned below that might not be the goal of their content.

 

I don't say this as a criticism of AMG, as I have no idea what they're trying to accomplish with their channel. For example, their strategy might be focusing primarily on GEARS to show expertise in that area and as a marker differentiator which then drives in-person or online paying business. And to be honest it doesn't make business sense for any golf instructor to give away all the goods for free. I'd imagine when AMG is doing actual lessons they look at GEARS then customize the advice to what the client needs. 

As a professional marketer, you actually hit the nail on the head, and the latter part about business sense isn't really true. A core tenet of good content marketing is giving away some of the goods because it's a demonstration of subject matter expertise, it's compelling, it's honest. The reality is, that the information is only part of the goods, but it's not the execution, that's the part of the goods that really drives revenue from a business perspective (though AMG has gained a significant following and many traditionally business positive things come from that).

 

That's what AMG charges for, lots of money for, in fact, when they do exactly what you are saying, using GEARS as a measurement tool to teach people how to become better golfers. Hiding content is never the way to go across many, many industries. AMG also has the more in-depth version of all this content, where they also have instruction as part of their paid-for content libraries and AMG+. Sometimes it's about giving away something great to establish trust and show people that the paid for,  deeper version can help them even more.

Edited October 31, 2023 by JayMas

[GolfTurkey]

1 hour ago, Soloman1 said:

Or, the ball rides up the club face?

 

That one, and the ball gets pinched into the ground refuse to die. 

[Valtiel]

26 minutes ago, GolfTurkey said:

 

That one, and the ball gets pinched into the ground refuse to die. 

Thanks TREVINO for that one, hah. 

[CasualLie]

4 hours ago, me05501 said:

 

 

We should view the instruction idea marketplace like a buffet. Take what we need and leave the rest. 

 

Instead a lot of people seem to treat it like a row of high-end restaurants while viewing themselves as the self-appointed food critic from the NYT! 

 

Well done sir!  Post of the day.

[Soloman1]

Ah, yes.

 

GolfWRX instruction and Academy: The Yelp of golf. 🙂

 

 

[Albatross Dreamer]

14 hours ago, JayMas said:

As a professional marketer, you actually hit the nail on the head, and the latter part about business sense isn't really true. A core tenet of good content marketing is giving away some of the goods because it's a demonstration of subject matter expertise, it's compelling, it's honest. The reality is, that the information is only part of the goods, but it's not the execution, that's the part of the goods that really drives revenue from a business perspective (though AMG has gained a significant following and many traditionally business positive things come from that).

 

That's what AMG charges for, lots of money for, in fact, when they do exactly what you are saying, using GEARS as a measurement tool to teach people how to become better golfers. Hiding content is never the way to go across many, many industries. AMG also has the more in-depth version of all this content, where they also have instruction as part of their paid-for content libraries and AMG+. Sometimes it's about giving away something great to establish trust and show people that the paid for,  deeper version can help them even more.

I agree with you, and think we're actually saying the same thing. My point was more I think sometimes people have unreasonable expectations on the depth of information and/or level of personalization with the free product. Wasn't saying that people should "hide" stuff or make poor quality materials to try to get people to buy their better stuff, nor do I think AMG's YouTube videos are bad.

 

But at the same time there's differences in what you're going to get going from YouTube videos vs online community vs in-person visit. As there should be.

[me05501]

17 hours ago, Albatross Dreamer said:

I don't say this as a criticism of AMG, as I have no idea what they're trying to accomplish with their channel. For example, their strategy might be focusing primarily on GEARS to show expertise in that area and as a marker differentiator which then drives in-person or online paying business. 

 

Once a channel is garnering enough views it becomes a separate source of meaningful revenue. 

[MK7Golf21]

I don't think it's Mike and Shaun creating the youtube vids/marketing, I'm sure they have someone hired now to do all that who has in expertise in marketing and driving up views.

[NikeGolferTX]

Something not really discussed on this topic is feels.

 

I have my swing mostly where I want it and what I have to feel like I'm doing is probably wildly different than what you'd infer that I'm attempting to do from gears.

 

Ex. AMG encourages kind of pulling the arms down. I have to feel like I'm leaving them up and engaging only adduction/abduction through impact. Gears on my swing would probably show that they're pulling down.

 

If I was teaching through gears, I would make a video that has an amateur and say "feel like you're pulling the arms down", now feel like you're leaving them alone". Then see what data the feels generate. It may be the case that intentions produce opposite data than what one would think those intentions would cause.

Edited November 1, 2023 by NikeGolferTX

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, NikeGolferTX said:

Something not really discussed on this topic is feels.

 

I have my swing mostly where I want it and what I have to feel like I'm doing is probably widely different than what you'd infer that I'm attempting to do from gears.

 

Ex. AMG encourages kind of pulling the arms down. I have to feel like I'm leaving them up and engaging only adduction/abduction through impact. Gears on my swing would probably show that they're pulling down.

 

GEARS shows what's actually happening, yes. It does not record "feels" because feels are a nebulous, personal thing. Everyone's heard "feel ain't real" about a billion times. They vary, too. I've taught golfers the same mechanics with almost opposite feels.

[MPStrat]

17 hours ago, MonteScheinblum said:

Correct and I’ll do you one better.  There was one exception in that case.  Berger.

 

I asked 3 different biomechanics PHD’s, one from UCLA who knows nothing about golf, all said it’s impossible for the arms to fire first, if the feet are connected to the ground, and there is gravity.

 

Then I asked five different 3-D experts, excluding AMG, because they are a point of contention, who have captured tens of thousands of swings.

 

I asked him how many times have you seen the arms fire early.  The answer…

 

 

 

The internet talking point that it’s impossible to “fire the arms” too early is just that. It’s also extremely vague but based on reading what you’ve posted for 10 years I can say I know what you mean by it and I’ve seen you use it to defend two or three different movements.

 

As one example, let’s talk about how it has been used to defend Cast B 

 

You advocate throwing away the right wrist angle from extension to flexion intentionally in the downswing as part of your NTC swing method because it has been measured that way.

 

Foley creates the prosendr and says that most amateur players need to do the opposite and learn to maintain the right wrist angle through the strike.

 

Tyler Ferrell says this:

 

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CzGzWJkuvOM/?igshid=YjVjNjZkNmFjNg==

 

To this type of instruction you have said “casting is not a fault, it’s been measured etc…” 

 

You say “arguing with measured data is ignorance” I think it’s safe to say that these coaches know the measured data as well as anyone. Yet they are advocating for the complete opposite of your swing method.

 

The interesting thing about this is that you and foley aren’t claiming that some students need this and some need that. You are both selling a product aimed at “most amateurs” and teaching something completely opposite of the other. 

 

This is just one example of how the measured data can be known and accepted, yet interpreted and used very differently in the real world. So at the end of the day the consumer needs to understand that they are often getting a teachers individual interpretation of the data and that can vary sometimes quite significantly especially in a one-size-fits-all online setting. 

 

[NikeGolferTX]

Just now, iacas said:

 

GEARS shows what's actually happening, yes. It does not record "feels" because feels are a nebulous, personal thing. Everyone's heard "feel ain't real" about a billion times. They vary, too. I've taught golfers the same mechanics with almost opposite feels.

That's good and exactly what I think good coaches should do.

[swoosh21]

3 minutes ago, MPStrat said:

 

The internet talking point that it’s impossible to “fire the arms” too early is just that. It’s also extremely vague but based on reading what you’ve posted for 10 years I can say I know what you mean by it and I’ve seen you use it to defend two or three different movements.

 

As one example, let’s talk about how it has been used to defend Cast B 

 

You advocate throwing away the right wrist angle from extension to flexion intentionally in the downswing as part of your NTC swing method because it has been measured that way.

 

Foley creates the prosendr and says that most amateur players need to do the opposite and learn to maintain the right wrist angle through the strike.

 

Tyler Ferrell says this:

 

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CzGzWJkuvOM/?igshid=YjVjNjZkNmFjNg==

 

To this type of instruction you have said “casting is not a fault, it’s been measured etc…” 

 

You say “arguing with measured data is ignorance” I think it’s safe to say that these coaches know the measured data as well as anyone. Yet they are advocating for the complete opposite of your swing method.

 

The interesting thing about this is that you and foley aren’t claiming that some students need this and some need that. You are both selling a product aimed at “most amateurs” and teaching something completely opposite of the other. 

 

This is just one example of how the measured data can be known and accepted, yet interpreted and used very differently in the real world. So at the end of the day the consumer needs to understand that they are often getting a teachers individual interpretation of the data and that can vary sometimes quite significantly especially in a one-size-fits-all online setting. 

 

Did he state through the strike?  I thought he said through the downswing and you'll eventually release it based on your swing but it can be before impact.

[MPStrat]

2 minutes ago, swoosh21 said:

Did he state through the strike?  I thought he said through the downswing and you'll eventually release it based on your swing but it can be before impact.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CoFq4_5js82/?igshid=YjVjNjZkNmFjNg==

[betarhoalphadelta]

18 hours ago, Albatross Dreamer said:

To be honest I don't see most of their videos being that helpful from a "putting it into action standpoint". For me I see it being helpful to know what "should" be happening in the golf swing. Then can use instruction to try to put it into action. I'm speaking primarily about the videos that show pro vs am without much in terms of drills or how to actually put it into action. 

 

 

This is it for me. In the parlance of the post by @me05501 -- I'm an engineer. I think in very technical ways. It's important to me to know what I'm supposed to do and why, and AMG videos for that purpose are an absolutely AMAZING way to learn what happens mechanically in the golf swings of the best players on the planet. I believe I'm mobile, flexible, and athletic enough to make proper movements, so knowing what they are helps me understand instruction better.

 

That said, I don't use ANY of their videos "instructionally" to get a better golf swing. Monte is local to me. I go to him 😉 

 

Truth is, watching AMG videos doesn't help me DIAGNOSE my unique and individual faults. Watching AMG videos doesn't help me with drills or feels necessary to fix my unique and individual faults. It requires someone who not only knows what I should be doing, but sees what I actually am doing, and has the skills to help me move from one to the other, to actually get better. 

 

All the AMG videos in the world wouldn't have helped me diagnose what Monte fixed in my last lesson--bad setup. I didn't realize what I was doing, that it was bad, and just how bad it was and how much compensating I was forced to do because of it. 

 

Quote

I don't say this as a criticism of AMG, as I have no idea what they're trying to accomplish with their channel.

 

I'd say--bear in mind that this is speculation and I don't know them--that there are a couple of goals:

• Build their brand which attracts customers to their in-person, online, and AMG+ program, making it possible to keep their pipeline full and hopefully charge higher rates because demand for THEIR instruction services, not just "golf" instruction, increases. They use this to establish credibility and differentiation from other golf instructors. It's Marketing 101. 
• Revenue from monetizing the videos themselves. I don't know what level of revenue they're making, but it's accretive to their other ventures as once the videos are produced they can be a passive income stream.
• Pure geekery. Just from watching the two of them, this seems more like Mike's personality, but I think he just enjoys geeking out about the golf swing and presenting the things he's learned to others. He doesn't seem to be the guy who is making videos because he *has to* for his other business interests. I think this is just something fun that he enjoys, and he's lucky enough that it aligns with his business interests. 

That's my take at least. 

[Simpsonia]

38 minutes ago, MPStrat said:

 

The internet talking point that it’s impossible to “fire the arms” too early is just that. It’s also extremely vague but based on reading what you’ve posted for 10 years I can say I know what you mean by it and I’ve seen you use it to defend two or three different movements.

 

As one example, let’s talk about how it has been used to defend Cast B 

 

You advocate throwing away the right wrist angle from extension to flexion intentionally in the downswing as part of your NTC swing method because it has been measured that way.

 

Foley creates the prosendr and says that most amateur players need to do the opposite and learn to maintain the right wrist angle through the strike.

 

Tyler Ferrell says this:

 

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CzGzWJkuvOM/?igshid=YjVjNjZkNmFjNg==

 

To this type of instruction you have said “casting is not a fault, it’s been measured etc…” 

 

You say “arguing with measured data is ignorance” I think it’s safe to say that these coaches know the measured data as well as anyone. Yet they are advocating for the complete opposite of your swing method.

 

The interesting thing about this is that you and foley aren’t claiming that some students need this and some need that. You are both selling a product aimed at “most amateurs” and teaching something completely opposite of the other. 

 

This is just one example of how the measured data can be known and accepted, yet interpreted and used very differently in the real world. So at the end of the day the consumer needs to understand that they are often getting a teachers individual interpretation of the data and that can vary sometimes quite significantly especially in a one-size-fits-all online setting. 

 

 

 

As a huge Tyler disciple, I think you're mixing up a few things. He's one of the original 3D guys going back to the AMM days and has tons of data on wrist patterns. I think he would generally be in agreement with Monte that most all pros' trail wrists are moving from extension toward flexion at the moment of impact (even in his 2018 WGFS presentation on Arm Movement of Elite Golfers, his model pattern on Steve Elkington shows movement from extension towards flexion at the moment of impact, though it's very closely timed a couple milliseconds before impact; https://www.golfsmartacademy.com/golf-instruction/wgfs-2018-arm-movements-elite-golfers/). Your wrists can both be in extension but also moving towards flexion at a particular moment in time, and that's what all the data shows. 

 

How much and when they are moving towards flexion is up to the individual pattern. He also makes a point that the trail wrist needs to lose (or limit) trail wrist extension because it limits the amount of ulnar deviation of the wrists (https://www.golfsmartacademy.com/golf-instruction/connecting-trail-wrist-extension-trail-wrist-ulnar-deviation/). Without proper ulnar deviation you'll never have a proper release either. So it's all about balancing the competing interests. The wrists need to unhinge (ulnar) early which requires the loss or limitation of trail wrist extension. Now there are outliers who naturally limit radial deviation a lot (DJ) and so are able to hold on to their trail wrist extension later in the swing, but they still lose it at impact. A proper release is a change in direction that causes the trail wrist to move from extension towards flexion, but requires soft wrists. This release pattern is one of the main generators of club speed through impact. Tyler definitely does not recommend "holding" the wrists through impact (I've had this discussion on his site as a subscriber), though he may subscribe the feeling for certain drills at times for beginners who need to know what it feels like to be in extension at impact. 

 

I think the whole point of Monte's Cast B is that most amateur golfers don't know the proper feel of that release pattern. It's not a feel that works for me personally, but I can see how it can work for others. I do agree that "fire the arms" is a bit too vague in some ways as the arms as a movement pattern means many different things to many different people. For me, "firing the arms" means pulling with the shoulders, which is an OTT death move to the swing, so I have to feel passive arms, but that's just my own personal feel. 

Edited November 1, 2023 by Simpsonia

[RichieHunt]

I like the AMG Golf videos very much.  I knew this was going to be cringy clickbait because I know Neff was the creator of GEARS (and I'm a fan of GEARS). I just think it was a bad idea to do clickbait the public like that because you're trying to build credibility to your videos and then you set a bad tone by tricking the audience into watching the video.  If you want to bring credibility to a subject, don't give the audience the chance to conflate your credibility with you deceiving the audience with clickbait.  

I think many people who are skeptical of AMG, even after this video, are because of that.  But I think some simple points are being missed.

GEARS is a measurement tool.  It's very useful because it can measure important pieces of the body and club that the 2D can't measure or would measure inaccurately.  2D is particularly deceptive in something like the golf swing because the body of the golfer is pivoting and that skews not only the measurement but the understanding of what is really going on in the golf swing.  And more accurate understanding and measurements will allow the golfer to develop better visuals and 'feels' to produce closer to their desired result.

 

And don't get too caught up on their use of Tour averages.  They've also used certain pros that are closer to the extremes.  This is used throughout the world of statistics and measurement.  For instance, one may say that the average wide receiver in the NFL runs a 4.52 forty time.  And 1-standard deviation (68% of the population) is +/- 0.1  second.  So you may get a great WR that runs a 4.75 forty time, but it just means that he represents a very small population of WR's in the NFL and considering this WR is good, it's just a rare case.

 

It comes down to probability, not certainty.  Just like a team may find a good WR with a 4.75 forty time...it's just not very likely.  Just as a PGA Tour golfer may have far more pelvic sway than the PGA Tour averages, for the average amateur they are better off learning to keep their pelvic sway in a range closer to the tour average.

 

 

 

 

 

RH

[MPStrat]

3 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

 

As a huge Tyler disciple, I think you're mixing up a few things. He's one of the original 3D guys going back to the AMM days and has tons of data on wrist patterns. I think he would generally be in agreement with Monte that most all pros' trail wrists are moving from extension toward flexion at the moment of impact (even in his 2018 WGFS presentation on Arm Movement of Elite Golfers, his model pattern on Steve Elkington shows movement from extension towards flexion at the moment of impact, though it's very closely timed; https://www.golfsmartacademy.com/golf-instruction/wgfs-2018-arm-movements-elite-golfers/). Your wrists can both be in flexion but also moving towards extension at a particular moment in time, and that's what all the data shows. 

 

How much and when they are moving towards flexion is up to the individual pattern. He also makes a point that the trail wrist needs to lose (or limit) trail wrist extension because it limits the amount of ulnar deviation of the wrists (https://www.golfsmartacademy.com/golf-instruction/connecting-trail-wrist-extension-trail-wrist-ulnar-deviation/). Without proper ulnar deviation you'll never have a proper release either. So it's all about balancing the competing interests. The wrists need to unhinge (ulnar) early which requires the loss or limitation of trail wrist extension. Now there are outliers who naturally limit ulnar a lot and so are able to hold on to their trail wrist extension later in the swing, but they still lose it at impact. A proper release is a change in direction that causes the trail wrist to move from extension towards flexion, but requires soft wrists. This release pattern is one of the main generators of club speed through impact. Tyler definitely does not recommend "holding" the wrists through impact (I've had this discussion on his site as a subscriber), he just generally wants your wrists to be in extension at the moment of impact even if they are moving towards extension. 

 

I think the whole point of Monte's Cast B is that most amateur golfers don't know the proper feel of that release pattern. It's not a feel that works for me personally, but I can see how it can work for others. 

I think you are missing the forest for the trees. I’m not saying Tyler and Foley are saying the same thing and I’m not saying what Monte is saying is wrong. I’m saying what Monte and Foley are saying is opposite. Tyler’s video shares no similarity to any video Monte has ever or would ever make on this topic. That’s why I used Tyler’s video. Though I can say with confidence that Tyler would probably never make a video for the masses advocating they intentionally cast B with the right wrist as a swing method. 

[Hilts1969]

11 minutes ago, RichieHunt said:

I like the AMG Golf videos very much.  I knew this was going to be cringy clickbait because I know Neff was the creator of GEARS (and I'm a fan of GEARS). I just think it was a bad idea to do clickbait the public like that because you're trying to build credibility to your videos and then you set a bad tone by tricking the audience into watching the video.  If you want to bring credibility to a subject, don't give the audience the chance to conflate your credibility with you deceiving the audience with clickbait.  

I think many people who are skeptical of AMG, even after this video, are because of that.  But I think some simple points are being missed.

GEARS is a measurement tool.  It's very useful because it can measure important pieces of the body and club that the 2D can't measure or would measure inaccurately.  2D is particularly deceptive in something like the golf swing because the body of the golfer is pivoting and that skews not only the measurement but the understanding of what is really going on in the golf swing.  And more accurate understanding and measurements will allow the golfer to develop better visuals and 'feels' to produce closer to their desired result.

 

And don't get too caught up on their use of Tour averages.  They've also used certain pros that are closer to the extremes.  This is used throughout the world of statistics and measurement.  For instance, one may say that the average wide receiver in the NFL runs a 4.52 forty time.  And 1-standard deviation (68% of the population) is +/- 0.1  second.  So you may get a great WR that runs a 4.75 forty time, but it just means that he represents a very small population of WR's in the NFL and considering this WR is good, it's just a rare case.

 

It comes down to probability, not certainty.  Just like a team may find a good WR with a 4.75 forty time...it's just not very likely.  Just as a PGA Tour golfer may have far more pelvic sway than the PGA Tour averages, for the average amateur they are better off learning to keep their pelvic sway in a range closer to the tour average.

 

 

 

 

 

RH

 

You must be easily tricked:-)

[Simpsonia]

11 minutes ago, MPStrat said:

I think you are missing the forest for the trees. I’m not saying Tyler and Foley are saying the same thing and I’m not saying what Monte is saying is wrong. I’m saying what Monte and Foley are saying is opposite. Tyler’s video shares no similarity to any video Monte has ever or would ever make on this topic. That’s why I used Tyler’s video. Though I can say with confidence that Tyler would probably never make a video for the masses advocating they intentionally cast B with the right wrist as a swing method. 

 

I mean is it a shocker that two different teachers have two different teaching styles and present the same things in terms of different swing feels? We get it, Monte's feels don't resonate with you. They don't resonate with me either, that doesn't mean they don't resonate with anyone at all. Nor does that mean I have to go on a crusade to point out that they don't resonate with me in every dang thread on the Instruction forum. I think the popularity and success of those NTC videos shows that those feels really do work for a lot of people. At the end of the day, shouldn't we be glad that people find resonance and improve via whatever avenues they take to get there? 

Edited November 1, 2023 by Simpsonia

[MPStrat]

13 minutes ago, RichieHunt said:

I like the AMG Golf videos very much.  I knew this was going to be cringy clickbait because I know Neff was the creator of GEARS (and I'm a fan of GEARS). I just think it was a bad idea to do clickbait the public like that because you're trying to build credibility to your videos and then you set a bad tone by tricking the audience into watching the video.  If you want to bring credibility to a subject, don't give the audience the chance to conflate your credibility with you deceiving the audience with clickbait.  

I think many people who are skeptical of AMG, even after this video, are because of that.  But I think some simple points are being missed.

Good points here. I still don’t know why it is so outlandish to think Michael Neff might possibly disagree with them some things. In hindsight, I wasn’t surprised it was what it was.

[Zitlow]

Does the AMG guy recommend unfolding the right hand into palmar flexion to start the downswing? Ask 10 different teachers how the hands work in downswing and you might get 10 different answers. 

 

The hand action in the downswing is set up in the backswing. The hands action is so quick in the downswing you can't control it, all you can control is the trigger that gets the club started.