Jump to content

Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at GolfWRX such as viewing all the images, interacting with members, access to all forums and eligiblility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE GolfWRX account here.

* * * * * 2 votes

Don't Bump


222 replies to this topic

#181 iteachgolf

iteachgolf

    Legend

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,321 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 14489
  • Joined: 04/30/2006
  • Location:Jacksonville, FL
GolfWRX Likes : 5903

Posted 15 April 2018 - 01:15 PM

View PostBottleCap, on 15 April 2018 - 09:39 AM, said:

View Postairjammer, on 15 April 2018 - 09:29 AM, said:



Their marketing style is that we have information you don’t..and we aren’t giving you any how to’s without $. Which is absolutely their right..they paid for the equipment etc.

All the information in the world is useless, unless you can effectively communicate it. I never see any before and after’s. That’s why dan, gg, and dana among others are great. The can take pretty much anyone and given enough time they can get them swinging how they want them to.

I think they have their own signature swing models. Each of them have a few things they emphasize, you can't mix because they're different swings

I won’t speak for anyone else but I definitely don’t teach off a model.


Remove This Advertisement Viewing As Guest

    GolfWRX Forums

    Advertisement


1

#182 Senfan

Senfan

    Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 56 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 150353
  • Joined: 12/08/2011
  • Ebay ID:Senfan64
GolfWRX Likes : 5

Posted 15 April 2018 - 01:19 PM

I always find this odd. I agree with most people here that you do lead with the lower body but it's not something you should be trying to do, it should happen naturally, like swing a swing in baseball throwing a football heck even throwing a fisbee. This is something that kind of fubared my swing about 5 years ago started thinking lead with a bump well that caused so many dang problems, especially my lower body completely outracing my arms

2

#183 FatReed

FatReed

    FatReed

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 541 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 345469
  • Joined: 10/20/2014
GolfWRX Likes : 180

Posted 15 April 2018 - 02:26 PM

Let me try to excel things toward the rabbit hole’s greatest depth. . . . end point along the path modern instructors like FWP are traveling.

SUPPOSE scientists had perfect equipment and capable of performing perfect science. Many years from now, researchers were able to define every position of the club and human body in 4D; every force applied by the human, outside the human (e.g., gravity), to the human, to the club, to the earth (e.g.  ground forces). . . . you get my drift, EVERYTHING!

First, the above measurements would be damn near infinite if culminated for a single human, and infinite in variation if culminated for more than one. Nonetheless, scientists somehow manage to obtain ALL the ‘data.’

If this proposal sounds like nonsense, it is, but not because it’s seemingly impossible to obtain. . . but because it would be absolutely useless information (infinite minutia) toward LEARNING the golf swing (motion); impossible, as the human simply could not process and apply it. What would be even worse and more impossible - if ‘more impossible’ existed - would be a golf instructor trying to ‘teach’ motion according to the data accumulated. Motion cannot be taught!

If you think my example is nonsense because it’s extreme, then I ask you what is the end point for studying golf swing motion? The end point for all the minutia presented and regurgitated by FWP, and the like? As of this moment, are the studies complete and all the data confirmed to be accumulated; all the ‘answers’ known?

My point is that, even if everything were known, it would still be useless. In fact, the more information (minutia) the worse, particularly if one believes the information can be applied, and the golf swing (motion) be taught.

What the human body accomplishes in terms of complex motion has evolved to be learned through defined objective(s); not through micro-dissecting the motion(s) into components (that may or may not be measured and defined); and not through trying teach motion.

In fact, WRXers are largely a living ‘experiment’ proving this fact, but subjects simply do not wish to withdraw from the experiment in futility. Why? Because modern golf instruction would have you believe motion can be taught and/or the objective has shifted from advancing the ball from point A to point B to the golf swing (motion) itself.

Motion cannot be taught. It must be learned . . . through a defined and proper objective.

3

#184 jut111

jut111

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 205837
  • Joined: 10/04/2012
  • Location:North of Boston
GolfWRX Likes : 756

Posted 15 April 2018 - 02:32 PM

View PostFatReed, on 15 April 2018 - 02:26 PM, said:

Let me try to excel things toward the rabbit hole’s greatest depth. . . . end point along the path modern instructors like FWP are traveling.

SUPPOSE scientists had perfect equipment and capable of performing perfect science. Many years from now, researchers were able to define every position of the club and human body in 4D; every force applied by the human, outside the human (e.g., gravity), to the human, to the club, to the earth (e.g.  ground forces). . . . you get my drift, EVERYTHING!

First, the above measurements would be damn near infinite if culminated for a single human, and infinite in variation if culminated for more than one. Nonetheless, scientists somehow manage to obtain ALL the ‘data.’

If this proposal sounds like nonsense, it is, but not because it’s seemingly impossible to obtain. . . but because it would be absolutely useless information (infinite minutia) toward LEARNING the golf swing (motion); impossible, as the human simply could not process and apply it. What would be even worse and more impossible - if ‘more impossible’ existed - would be a golf instructor trying to ‘teach’ motion according to the data accumulated. Motion cannot be taught!

If you think my example is nonsense because it’s extreme, then I ask you what is the end point for studying golf swing motion? The end point for all the minutia presented and regurgitated by FWP, and the like? As of this moment, are the studies complete and all the data confirmed to be accumulated; all the ‘answers’ known?

My point is that, even if everything were known, it would still be useless. In fact, the more information (minutia) the worse, particularly if one believes the information can be applied, and the golf swing (motion) be taught.

What the human body accomplishes in terms of complex motion has evolved to be learned through defined objective(s); not through micro-dissecting the motion(s) into components (that may or may not be measured and defined); and not through trying teach motion.

In fact, WRXers are largely a living ‘experiment’ proving this fact, but subjects simply do not wish to withdraw from the experiment in futility. Why? Because modern golf instruction would have you believe motion can be taught and/or the objective has shifted from advancing the ball from point A to point B to the golf swing (motion) itself.

Motion cannot be taught. It must be learned . . . through a defined and proper objective.

okay it's cold and rainy outside so I'll bite.  How do you propose one learn said motion?

4

#185 jbw749

jbw749

    Tour Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 871 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 142633
  • Joined: 10/15/2011
  • Handicap:3
GolfWRX Likes : 464

Posted 15 April 2018 - 02:51 PM

View Postjut111, on 15 April 2018 - 02:32 PM, said:

View PostFatReed, on 15 April 2018 - 02:26 PM, said:

Let me try to excel things toward the rabbit hole’s greatest depth. . . . end point along the path modern instructors like FWP are traveling.

SUPPOSE scientists had perfect equipment and capable of performing perfect science. Many years from now, researchers were able to define every position of the club and human body in 4D; every force applied by the human, outside the human (e.g., gravity), to the human, to the club, to the earth (e.g.  ground forces). . . . you get my drift, EVERYTHING!

First, the above measurements would be damn near infinite if culminated for a single human, and infinite in variation if culminated for more than one. Nonetheless, scientists somehow manage to obtain ALL the ‘data.’

If this proposal sounds like nonsense, it is, but not because it’s seemingly impossible to obtain. . . but because it would be absolutely useless information (infinite minutia) toward LEARNING the golf swing (motion); impossible, as the human simply could not process and apply it. What would be even worse and more impossible - if ‘more impossible’ existed - would be a golf instructor trying to ‘teach’ motion according to the data accumulated. Motion cannot be taught!

If you think my example is nonsense because it’s extreme, then I ask you what is the end point for studying golf swing motion? The end point for all the minutia presented and regurgitated by FWP, and the like? As of this moment, are the studies complete and all the data confirmed to be accumulated; all the ‘answers’ known?

My point is that, even if everything were known, it would still be useless. In fact, the more information (minutia) the worse, particularly if one believes the information can be applied, and the golf swing (motion) be taught.

What the human body accomplishes in terms of complex motion has evolved to be learned through defined objective(s); not through micro-dissecting the motion(s) into components (that may or may not be measured and defined); and not through trying teach motion.

In fact, WRXers are largely a living ‘experiment’ proving this fact, but subjects simply do not wish to withdraw from the experiment in futility. Why? Because modern golf instruction would have you believe motion can be taught and/or the objective has shifted from advancing the ball from point A to point B to the golf swing (motion) itself.

Motion cannot be taught. It must be learned . . . through a defined and proper objective.

okay it's cold and rainy outside so I'll bite.  How do you propose one learn said motion?

Through awareness.


5

#186 CoiledUP

CoiledUP

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 195 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 486052
  • Joined: 11/04/2017
GolfWRX Likes : 66

Posted 15 April 2018 - 06:22 PM

View PostFatReed, on 15 April 2018 - 02:26 PM, said:

Let me try to excel things toward the rabbit hole’s greatest depth. . . . end point along the path modern instructors like FWP are traveling.

SUPPOSE scientists had perfect equipment and capable of performing perfect science. Many years from now, researchers were able to define every position of the club and human body in 4D; every force applied by the human, outside the human (e.g., gravity), to the human, to the club, to the earth (e.g.  ground forces). . . . you get my drift, EVERYTHING!

First, the above measurements would be damn near infinite if culminated for a single human, and infinite in variation if culminated for more than one. Nonetheless, scientists somehow manage to obtain ALL the ‘data.’

If this proposal sounds like nonsense, it is, but not because it’s seemingly impossible to obtain. . . but because it would be absolutely useless information (infinite minutia) toward LEARNING the golf swing (motion); impossible, as the human simply could not process and apply it. What would be even worse and more impossible - if ‘more impossible’ existed - would be a golf instructor trying to ‘teach’ motion according to the data accumulated. Motion cannot be taught!

If you think my example is nonsense because it’s extreme, then I ask you what is the end point for studying golf swing motion? The end point for all the minutia presented and regurgitated by FWP, and the like? As of this moment, are the studies complete and all the data confirmed to be accumulated; all the ‘answers’ known?

My point is that, even if everything were known, it would still be useless. In fact, the more information (minutia) the worse, particularly if one believes the information can be applied, and the golf swing (motion) be taught.

What the human body accomplishes in terms of complex motion has evolved to be learned through defined objective(s); not through micro-dissecting the motion(s) into components (that may or may not be measured and defined); and not through trying teach motion.

In fact, WRXers are largely a living ‘experiment’ proving this fact, but subjects simply do not wish to withdraw from the experiment in futility. Why? Because modern golf instruction would have you believe motion can be taught and/or the objective has shifted from advancing the ball from point A to point B to the golf swing (motion) itself.

Motion cannot be taught. It must be learned . . . through a defined and proper objective.

Good one FatReed.

/thread

6

#187 NotForeLong

NotForeLong

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 75 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 487708
  • Joined: 11/29/2017
  • Handicap:1,2
GolfWRX Likes : 51

Posted 15 April 2018 - 06:32 PM

View PostFatReed, on 15 April 2018 - 02:26 PM, said:

Let me try to excel things toward the rabbit hole’s greatest depth. . . . end point along the path modern instructors like FWP are traveling.

SUPPOSE scientists had perfect equipment and capable of performing perfect science. Many years from now, researchers were able to define every position of the club and human body in 4D; every force applied by the human, outside the human (e.g., gravity), to the human, to the club, to the earth (e.g.  ground forces). . . . you get my drift, EVERYTHING!

First, the above measurements would be damn near infinite if culminated for a single human, and infinite in variation if culminated for more than one. Nonetheless, scientists somehow manage to obtain ALL the ‘data.’

If this proposal sounds like nonsense, it is, but not because it’s seemingly impossible to obtain. . . but because it would be absolutely useless information (infinite minutia) toward LEARNING the golf swing (motion); impossible, as the human simply could not process and apply it. What would be even worse and more impossible - if ‘more impossible’ existed - would be a golf instructor trying to ‘teach’ motion according to the data accumulated. Motion cannot be taught!

If you think my example is nonsense because it’s extreme, then I ask you what is the end point for studying golf swing motion? The end point for all the minutia presented and regurgitated by FWP, and the like? As of this moment, are the studies complete and all the data confirmed to be accumulated; all the ‘answers’ known?

My point is that, even if everything were known, it would still be useless. In fact, the more information (minutia) the worse, particularly if one believes the information can be applied, and the golf swing (motion) be taught.

What the human body accomplishes in terms of complex motion has evolved to be learned through defined objective(s); not through micro-dissecting the motion(s) into components (that may or may not be measured and defined); and not through trying teach motion.

In fact, WRXers are largely a living ‘experiment’ proving this fact, but subjects simply do not wish to withdraw from the experiment in futility. Why? Because modern golf instruction would have you believe motion can be taught and/or the objective has shifted from advancing the ball from point A to point B to the golf swing (motion) itself.

Motion cannot be taught. It must be learned . . . through a defined and proper objective.

I used to be on sitd, this sounds like the same stuff those hacks on there used  to say. They like you, don’t understand how instructors use data.

7

#188 FatReed

FatReed

    FatReed

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 541 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 345469
  • Joined: 10/20/2014
GolfWRX Likes : 180

Posted 15 April 2018 - 07:17 PM

Jut111 wrote:

“okay it's cold and rainy outside so I'll bite. How do you propose one learn said motion?”

*****

Just as every golfer is different, the answer to your question will also vary.

The most proficient GOLFERS typically originate from PLAYING and LEARNING the game at a YOUNG age. This is not unlike any other sport. This represents only one population of golfers and, for them, the key is simply PLAYING golf, or golf-related games (chipping contests in backyard with friends, etc). Young golfers, unless prompted otherwise, do not think about the golf swing (motion). Their OBJECTIVE is, most often, to simply advance a ball from point A to point B. Through this objective, they develop their motion. . . not vice versa.

Do all golfers who play the game in their youth become proficient, or equally proficient in the process? Is it not possible to become a proficient golfer if one does not play the game his/her youth? The answer is ‘no’ to both questions. Do all young boys who play baseball in their youth go on to play MLB? Is a human who has never been exposed to a baseball more likely to develop a good throwing motion during their youth, or as an adult? Motion (motor mapping) is most easily/proficiently developed in youth, but I do not wish to digress too far down this well-established path.

What about the golfer who never developed the ability to play golf proficiently in their youth, or the adult who either takes up the game or wishes to become more proficient than he/she had become in earlier stages of their life?  How do they become proficient? Despite good intentions, this is the typical population of golfers that gives chase down the rabbit hole.

For many, including the vast majority of WXR golfers that have chased furthest down the rabbit hole, the following statement resonates: it is harder to unlearn than it is to learn. It is not just WRX golfers, but nearly all golfers that have pursued modern golf instruction. In each instance, the focus has been – and increasingly so – shifted to the wrong objective. From advancing a ball from point A to point B on the golf course, to the golf swing motion in a hitting bay.

The proper objective is to move the ball from point A to point B and, in the process of executing said objective, one LEARNS their most proficient motion. Unfortunately, the motion itself has almost universally become the objective in non-proficient and frustrated golfers. In this population, unlike those in their youth, the first and most difficult objective is to unlearn – reset focus on the proper objective. My apologies to PepsiDuck, but his concurrent thread serves prime example.

With regard to modern golf instruction, there needs to be a shift in paradigm. Nearly all golf instruction has become golf ‘swing’ instruction. You cannot teach motion and thus, the focus of modern golf instruction has, as I repeatedly state, slipped into the dark ages through this growing attempt to do so. It is giving golfers chase further and further down the rabbit hole. In my prior post, I carried the current course of instruction to its ideal – and fruitless - end point.

What is the best paradigm for golf instruction? As you might expect, I suggest it begins with abandoning focus on trying to teach the golf swing (motion). In this regard, instruction should emphasize and foster focus on the proper objective - moving the ball from point A to point B. In the process, the golfer will develop their most proficient motion – some more proficient than others.

How can the golf instructor foster the process? The options are extensive, but include emphasizing external over internal cues, such as visualizing ball flight (external cue) and not body positions (internal cues). . . etc, etc, etc.

Honestly, this post could be a book – and has already become a chapter. I realize nobody wants to read posts that are too long on this forum, so I will refrain from expressing further thought at this time. Hopefully, however, I have provided meaningful feedback to the question posed.

8

#189 CoiledUP

CoiledUP

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 195 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 486052
  • Joined: 11/04/2017
GolfWRX Likes : 66

Posted 15 April 2018 - 07:22 PM

View PostNotForeLong, on 15 April 2018 - 06:32 PM, said:

View PostFatReed, on 15 April 2018 - 02:26 PM, said:

Motion cannot be taught. It must be learned . . . through a defined and proper objective.
I used to be on sitd, this sounds like the same stuff those hacks on there used  to say. They like you, don't understand how instructors use data.

Hacks?  You mean like the two tour professionals headlining the old site that provided content, like this gem. Might be too confusing for some as it lacks data.


9

#190 NotForeLong

NotForeLong

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 75 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 487708
  • Joined: 11/29/2017
  • Handicap:1,2
GolfWRX Likes : 51

Posted 15 April 2018 - 08:41 PM

The thread that was about the “swing motion” was full of clueless hacks.  I never saw elk or anyone else on there on that thread.. The video isn’t confusing, it’s just very shallow. I’m sure it may help some, but there are better ways to explain it.


Remove This Advertisement Viewing As Guest

    GolfWRX Forums

    Advertisement


10

#191 glk

glk

    send it in jerome

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,808 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 336135
  • Joined: 08/25/2014
  • Location:Kodak, Tn/Chucktown, Sc via Chicago & Burgh
GolfWRX Likes : 4302

Posted 15 April 2018 - 09:16 PM

So using external cues doesn’t count as teaching motion but rather learning it?    Color me unimpressed.   But not surprised.  And the point a to b insight.    Tell that to a student on the lesson tee.

11

#192 whatshannenin

whatshannenin

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,177 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 39849
  • Joined: 09/24/2007
GolfWRX Likes : 315

Posted 15 April 2018 - 09:16 PM

View PostFatReed, on 15 April 2018 - 07:17 PM, said:

Jut111 wrote:

“okay it's cold and rainy outside so I'll bite. How do you propose one learn said motion?”

*****

Just as every golfer is different, the answer to your question will also vary.

The most proficient GOLFERS typically originate from PLAYING and LEARNING the game at a YOUNG age. This is not unlike any other sport. This represents only one population of golfers and, for them, the key is simply PLAYING golf, or golf-related games (chipping contests in backyard with friends, etc). Young golfers, unless prompted otherwise, do not think about the golf swing (motion). Their OBJECTIVE is, most often, to simply advance a ball from point A to point B. Through this objective, they develop their motion. . . not vice versa.

Do all golfers who play the game in their youth become proficient, or equally proficient in the process? Is it not possible to become a proficient golfer if one does not play the game his/her youth? The answer is ‘no’ to both questions. Do all young boys who play baseball in their youth go on to play MLB? Is a human who has never been exposed to a baseball more likely to develop a good throwing motion during their youth, or as an adult? Motion (motor mapping) is most easily/proficiently developed in youth, but I do not wish to digress too far down this well-established path.

What about the golfer who never developed the ability to play golf proficiently in their youth, or the adult who either takes up the game or wishes to become more proficient than he/she had become in earlier stages of their life?  How do they become proficient? Despite good intentions, this is the typical population of golfers that gives chase down the rabbit hole.

For many, including the vast majority of WXR golfers that have chased furthest down the rabbit hole, the following statement resonates: it is harder to unlearn than it is to learn. It is not just WRX golfers, but nearly all golfers that have pursued modern golf instruction. In each instance, the focus has been – and increasingly so – shifted to the wrong objective. From advancing a ball from point A to point B on the golf course, to the golf swing motion in a hitting bay.

The proper objective is to move the ball from point A to point B and, in the process of executing said objective, one LEARNS their most proficient motion. Unfortunately, the motion itself has almost universally become the objective in non-proficient and frustrated golfers. In this population, unlike those in their youth, the first and most difficult objective is to unlearn – reset focus on the proper objective. My apologies to PepsiDuck, but his concurrent thread serves prime example.

With regard to modern golf instruction, there needs to be a shift in paradigm. Nearly all golf instruction has become golf ‘swing’ instruction. You cannot teach motion and thus, the focus of modern golf instruction has, as I repeatedly state, slipped into the dark ages through this growing attempt to do so. It is giving golfers chase further and further down the rabbit hole. In my prior post, I carried the current course of instruction to its ideal – and fruitless - end point.

What is the best paradigm for golf instruction? As you might expect, I suggest it begins with abandoning focus on trying to teach the golf swing (motion). In this regard, instruction should emphasize and foster focus on the proper objective - moving the ball from point A to point B. In the process, the golfer will develop their most proficient motion – some more proficient than others.

How can the golf instructor foster the process? The options are extensive, but include emphasizing external over internal cues, such as visualizing ball flight (external cue) and not body positions (internal cues). . . etc, etc, etc.

Honestly, this post could be a book – and has already become a chapter. I realize nobody wants to read posts that are too long on this forum, so I will refrain from expressing further thought at this time. Hopefully, however, I have provided meaningful feedback to the question posed.





12

#193 CoiledUP

CoiledUP

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 195 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 486052
  • Joined: 11/04/2017
GolfWRX Likes : 66

Posted 16 April 2018 - 07:12 AM

View PostNotForeLong, on 15 April 2018 - 08:41 PM, said:

The thread that was about the "swing motion" was full of clueless hacks.  I never saw elk or anyone else on there on that thread.. The video isn't confusing, it's just very shallow. I'm sure it may help some, but there are better ways to explain it.

Was speaking more to a site's overall content availability and quality than a topic thread's specific content driven by users, some of whom may be clueless hacks.   With respect to the video, it is as shallow as it is deep- shallow enough to post two major wins and a superlative Ryder Cup record, give or take a chapped butt.

13

#194 Fort Worth Pro

Fort Worth Pro

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,651 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 58263
  • Joined: 06/18/2008
GolfWRX Likes : 1320

Posted 16 April 2018 - 10:19 AM



A couple things...a)the wrist conditions are craziness.b) they are attempting to verify their beliefs using....AMM 3D. C)if you can make it to the end of the video they bring up his sway number and he is over 6 inches forward at impact and looking at the graph you can clearly see he begins moving laterally before the top of the backswing.

14

#195 CoiledUP

CoiledUP

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 195 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 486052
  • Joined: 11/04/2017
GolfWRX Likes : 66

Posted 16 April 2018 - 11:43 AM

The headliners, Burke Jr. and Elkington, primarily drove content, not some of the sub forums dedicated to a variety of topics with contributors like Kopp, Ayers, Como. etc.   The Elkington-Rodgers series, and the priceless contributions from Jackie Burke Jr., would not be difficult to conclude drew majority interest and views.  Tour tested contributions tend to do that.

Edited by CoiledUP, 16 April 2018 - 11:46 AM.


15

#196 Fort Worth Pro

Fort Worth Pro

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,651 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 58263
  • Joined: 06/18/2008
GolfWRX Likes : 1320

Posted 16 April 2018 - 12:07 PM

Did you watch the video? It's Ellington.

16

#197 FatReed

FatReed

    FatReed

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 541 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 345469
  • Joined: 10/20/2014
GolfWRX Likes : 180

Posted 16 April 2018 - 01:28 PM

View PostFort Worth Pro, on 16 April 2018 - 10:19 AM, said:



A couple things...a)the wrist conditions are craziness.b) they are attempting to verify their beliefs using....AMM 3D. C)if you can make it to the end of the video they bring up his sway number and he is over 6 inches forward at impact and looking at the graph you can clearly see he begins moving laterally before the top of the backswing.

So, once again, what you are suggesting is that what Martin thinks he is doing - or is attempting to do - isn’t what he is really doing. That, or what he describing is not real or effective.

Actually, your exact words were ‘the wrist conditions are craziness,’ meaning either he isn’t doing that, or the intent to do that is ‘craziness.’ Either way, Martin is an exceptional ball striker, so not sure what’s so crazy.

Does it matter if his intent/feel does not match ‘data’ regarding what he is actually doing? Does it matter if what he is actually doing doesn’t match the ‘data’ on what others are doing?

Look, the reason you so commonly comment on what players think they are doing isn’t what they are actually doing, or others are doing, is because FORCE DEFORMS (Frozen Divots)!!!!

Until you understand this, you will never understand the disconnect between feels/intents and observed form. Until golfers understand this, they will continue to struggle trying to find ‘positions’ that, for example, the AMG guys observe and report.

You can collect all the data you want, motion cannot be taught. . . FYI I do not know Martin, and do not support his trying to teach what HE does to OTHERS.

17

#198 Ghost of Snead

Ghost of Snead

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,497 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 257314
  • Joined: 06/19/2013
  • Location:Dixie
GolfWRX Likes : 1470

Posted 16 April 2018 - 01:52 PM

View PostFatReed, on 15 April 2018 - 02:26 PM, said:

Let me try to excel things toward the rabbit hole’s greatest depth. . . . end point along the path modern instructors like FWP are traveling.

SUPPOSE scientists had perfect equipment and capable of performing perfect science. Many years from now, researchers were able to define every position of the club and human body in 4D; every force applied by the human, outside the human (e.g., gravity), to the human, to the club, to the earth (e.g.  ground forces). . . . you get my drift, EVERYTHING!

First, the above measurements would be damn near infinite if culminated for a single human, and infinite in variation if culminated for more than one. Nonetheless, scientists somehow manage to obtain ALL the ‘data.’

If this proposal sounds like nonsense, it is, but not because it’s seemingly impossible to obtain. . . but because it would be absolutely useless information (infinite minutia) toward LEARNING the golf swing (motion); impossible, as the human simply could not process and apply it. What would be even worse and more impossible - if ‘more impossible’ existed - would be a golf instructor trying to ‘teach’ motion according to the data accumulated. Motion cannot be taught!

If you think my example is nonsense because it’s extreme, then I ask you what is the end point for studying golf swing motion? The end point for all the minutia presented and regurgitated by FWP, and the like? As of this moment, are the studies complete and all the data confirmed to be accumulated; all the ‘answers’ known?

My point is that, even if everything were known, it would still be useless. In fact, the more information (minutia) the worse, particularly if one believes the information can be applied, and the golf swing (motion) be taught.

What the human body accomplishes in terms of complex motion has evolved to be learned through defined objective(s); not through micro-dissecting the motion(s) into components (that may or may not be measured and defined); and not through trying teach motion.

In fact, WRXers are largely a living ‘experiment’ proving this fact, but subjects simply do not wish to withdraw from the experiment in futility. Why? Because modern golf instruction would have you believe motion can be taught and/or the objective has shifted from advancing the ball from point A to point B to the golf swing (motion) itself.

Motion cannot be taught. It must be learned . . . through a defined and proper objective.

You can focus all you want on advancing the ball from point A to point B, but it ain't happening unless you have the golf swing to get it there.

18

#199 FatReed

FatReed

    FatReed

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 541 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 345469
  • Joined: 10/20/2014
GolfWRX Likes : 180

Posted 16 April 2018 - 02:02 PM

View PostGhost of Snead, on 16 April 2018 - 01:52 PM, said:

View PostFatReed, on 15 April 2018 - 02:26 PM, said:

Let me try to excel things toward the rabbit hole’s greatest depth. . . . end point along the path modern instructors like FWP are traveling.

SUPPOSE scientists had perfect equipment and capable of performing perfect science. Many years from now, researchers were able to define every position of the club and human body in 4D; every force applied by the human, outside the human (e.g., gravity), to the human, to the club, to the earth (e.g.  ground forces). . . . you get my drift, EVERYTHING!

First, the above measurements would be damn near infinite if culminated for a single human, and infinite in variation if culminated for more than one. Nonetheless, scientists somehow manage to obtain ALL the ‘data.’

If this proposal sounds like nonsense, it is, but not because it’s seemingly impossible to obtain. . . but because it would be absolutely useless information (infinite minutia) toward LEARNING the golf swing (motion); impossible, as the human simply could not process and apply it. What would be even worse and more impossible - if ‘more impossible’ existed - would be a golf instructor trying to ‘teach’ motion according to the data accumulated. Motion cannot be taught!

If you think my example is nonsense because it’s extreme, then I ask you what is the end point for studying golf swing motion? The end point for all the minutia presented and regurgitated by FWP, and the like? As of this moment, are the studies complete and all the data confirmed to be accumulated; all the ‘answers’ known?

My point is that, even if everything were known, it would still be useless. In fact, the more information (minutia) the worse, particularly if one believes the information can be applied, and the golf swing (motion) be taught.

What the human body accomplishes in terms of complex motion has evolved to be learned through defined objective(s); not through micro-dissecting the motion(s) into components (that may or may not be measured and defined); and not through trying teach motion.

In fact, WRXers are largely a living ‘experiment’ proving this fact, but subjects simply do not wish to withdraw from the experiment in futility. Why? Because modern golf instruction would have you believe motion can be taught and/or the objective has shifted from advancing the ball from point A to point B to the golf swing (motion) itself.

Motion cannot be taught. It must be learned . . . through a defined and proper objective.

You can focus all you want on advancing the ball from point A to point B, but it ain't happening unless you have the golf swing to get it there.

Damn straight Ghost! . . . but you don’t learn/develop the golf swing (motion) by focusing on the motion itself.

The motion must be learned/developed through defined and proper objective(s) and, again, the motion is neither the proper focus or objective.

19

#200 Ghost of Snead

Ghost of Snead

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,497 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 257314
  • Joined: 06/19/2013
  • Location:Dixie
GolfWRX Likes : 1470

Posted 16 April 2018 - 02:16 PM

View PostFatReed, on 16 April 2018 - 02:02 PM, said:

View PostGhost of Snead, on 16 April 2018 - 01:52 PM, said:

View PostFatReed, on 15 April 2018 - 02:26 PM, said:

Let me try to excel things toward the rabbit hole’s greatest depth. . . . end point along the path modern instructors like FWP are traveling.

SUPPOSE scientists had perfect equipment and capable of performing perfect science. Many years from now, researchers were able to define every position of the club and human body in 4D; every force applied by the human, outside the human (e.g., gravity), to the human, to the club, to the earth (e.g.  ground forces). . . . you get my drift, EVERYTHING!

First, the above measurements would be damn near infinite if culminated for a single human, and infinite in variation if culminated for more than one. Nonetheless, scientists somehow manage to obtain ALL the ‘data.’

If this proposal sounds like nonsense, it is, but not because it’s seemingly impossible to obtain. . . but because it would be absolutely useless information (infinite minutia) toward LEARNING the golf swing (motion); impossible, as the human simply could not process and apply it. What would be even worse and more impossible - if ‘more impossible’ existed - would be a golf instructor trying to ‘teach’ motion according to the data accumulated. Motion cannot be taught!

If you think my example is nonsense because it’s extreme, then I ask you what is the end point for studying golf swing motion? The end point for all the minutia presented and regurgitated by FWP, and the like? As of this moment, are the studies complete and all the data confirmed to be accumulated; all the ‘answers’ known?

My point is that, even if everything were known, it would still be useless. In fact, the more information (minutia) the worse, particularly if one believes the information can be applied, and the golf swing (motion) be taught.

What the human body accomplishes in terms of complex motion has evolved to be learned through defined objective(s); not through micro-dissecting the motion(s) into components (that may or may not be measured and defined); and not through trying teach motion.

In fact, WRXers are largely a living ‘experiment’ proving this fact, but subjects simply do not wish to withdraw from the experiment in futility. Why? Because modern golf instruction would have you believe motion can be taught and/or the objective has shifted from advancing the ball from point A to point B to the golf swing (motion) itself.

Motion cannot be taught. It must be learned . . . through a defined and proper objective.

You can focus all you want on advancing the ball from point A to point B, but it ain't happening unless you have the golf swing to get it there.

Damn straight Ghost! . . . but you don’t learn/develop the golf swing (motion) by focusing on the motion itself.

The motion must be learned/developed through defined and proper objective(s) and, again, the motion is neither the proper focus or objective.

Please provide your list of defined and proper objectives.

Every golfer already has an pre-established motion which may or may not accomplish the objective of getting the ball from A to B. If the objective is not met, it is always necessary to focus on the parts causing the motion to not function correctly.

Edited by Ghost of Snead, 16 April 2018 - 02:22 PM.


Remove This Advertisement Viewing As Guest

    GolfWRX Forums

    Advertisement


Wanna get rid of this ugly yellow box? And remove other annoying "stuff" in between posts? Create a FREE GolfWRX account here.

20

#201 CoiledUP

CoiledUP

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 195 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 486052
  • Joined: 11/04/2017
GolfWRX Likes : 66

Posted 16 April 2018 - 04:50 PM

View PostFort Worth Pro, on 16 April 2018 - 12:07 PM, said:

Did you watch the video? It's Ellington.

Of course it's Elkington.  As previously stated Elkington and Burke Jr., in my opinion, drove primary content with their fine respective series, but there was other content in which Elkington did assist in a topic's examination with, for example, Ayers and Kopp, while users like Comeaux, Dariusz, Frozen Divots, and few others, had their own topic threads which did not have ongoing involvement from either of the two headliners,  if memory serves.  So a wide array of content and involvement starting first and foremost with Elkington and Burke Jr. doing their own tour level work from on high and emanating from there.

21

#202 Silky

Silky

    Tour Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 685 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 103468
  • Joined: 02/15/2010
GolfWRX Likes : 169

Posted 16 April 2018 - 05:29 PM

View PostGhost of Snead, on 16 April 2018 - 02:16 PM, said:

View PostFatReed, on 16 April 2018 - 02:02 PM, said:

View PostGhost of Snead, on 16 April 2018 - 01:52 PM, said:

View PostFatReed, on 15 April 2018 - 02:26 PM, said:

Let me try to excel things toward the rabbit hole’s greatest depth. . . . end point along the path modern instructors like FWP are traveling.

SUPPOSE scientists had perfect equipment and capable of performing perfect science. Many years from now, researchers were able to define every position of the club and human body in 4D; every force applied by the human, outside the human (e.g., gravity), to the human, to the club, to the earth (e.g.  ground forces). . . . you get my drift, EVERYTHING!

First, the above measurements would be damn near infinite if culminated for a single human, and infinite in variation if culminated for more than one. Nonetheless, scientists somehow manage to obtain ALL the ‘data.’

If this proposal sounds like nonsense, it is, but not because it’s seemingly impossible to obtain. . . but because it would be absolutely useless information (infinite minutia) toward LEARNING the golf swing (motion); impossible, as the human simply could not process and apply it. What would be even worse and more impossible - if ‘more impossible’ existed - would be a golf instructor trying to ‘teach’ motion according to the data accumulated. Motion cannot be taught!

If you think my example is nonsense because it’s extreme, then I ask you what is the end point for studying golf swing motion? The end point for all the minutia presented and regurgitated by FWP, and the like? As of this moment, are the studies complete and all the data confirmed to be accumulated; all the ‘answers’ known?

My point is that, even if everything were known, it would still be useless. In fact, the more information (minutia) the worse, particularly if one believes the information can be applied, and the golf swing (motion) be taught.

What the human body accomplishes in terms of complex motion has evolved to be learned through defined objective(s); not through micro-dissecting the motion(s) into components (that may or may not be measured and defined); and not through trying teach motion.

In fact, WRXers are largely a living ‘experiment’ proving this fact, but subjects simply do not wish to withdraw from the experiment in futility. Why? Because modern golf instruction would have you believe motion can be taught and/or the objective has shifted from advancing the ball from point A to point B to the golf swing (motion) itself.

Motion cannot be taught. It must be learned . . . through a defined and proper objective.

You can focus all you want on advancing the ball from point A to point B, but it ain't happening unless you have the golf swing to get it there.

Damn straight Ghost! . . . but you don’t learn/develop the golf swing (motion) by focusing on the motion itself.

The motion must be learned/developed through defined and proper objective(s) and, again, the motion is neither the proper focus or objective.

Please provide your list of defined and proper objectives.

Every golfer already has an pre-established motion which may or may not accomplish the objective of getting the ball from A to B. If the objective is not met, it is always necessary to focus on the parts causing the motion to not function correctly.

Maybe, I could try to complement FR's proposition from another angle.  Some of the competencies that we acquired since childhood - whistling, snapping fingers, throwing balls, throwing Frisbees, igniting a match, snapping a wet towel, flailing a paper banger, etc, are mechanical actions that may fall under the FR's category of "cannot be taught but must be learned".

There are so many ways of moving a golf ball from point A to point B with a golf club, and observing a few of my golfing partners, I sometimes have the notion of "mercy killing" appear in my mind - their golf swings that is, not them in persons.  The to unlearn part is a lot more difficult than the to learn.

I wish there were clear and distinct signs that you have "learned" in a golf swing akin to the ignition of a match, the loud bang of a paper banger, etc.  The teachers can foster the conditions for the student to acquire the learning of a proper and powerful release.  I agree that "component-wise" instructions are not the way to go.

22

#203 CoiledUP

CoiledUP

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 195 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 486052
  • Joined: 11/04/2017
GolfWRX Likes : 66

Posted 17 April 2018 - 06:27 PM

View PostSilky, on 16 April 2018 - 05:29 PM, said:

I agree that "component-wise" instructions are not the way to go.

While agreeing overall, I believe there may be nuance.   Some already having established sequences  may choose to tighten the sequence further by working on a particular component's involvement. I do, however,  support the idea learning excels when the focus is not overly mechanical, or technical. A good example of this is Gary McCord demonstrating how Mac O'Grady gave an objective to Gary with the goal of reigning in a back swing that was too wide.   McCord was told "do what you have to do to not hit the bush, and when you can do that, you're done", no mention of angles, planes, pressures, flexion, extension, or other like terms.  Don't have the quote exactly, but the point is made.

Tempo Master swing club is an example with a similar objective.      No real instructions needed, just do what you have to do to keep slack out of the whip.

When I help friends I don't say "do this".  I say "what would you have to do in order to accomplish this" which allows discovery on their time, not mine.

Edited by CoiledUP, 17 April 2018 - 06:28 PM.


23

#204 CoiledUP

CoiledUP

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 195 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 486052
  • Joined: 11/04/2017
GolfWRX Likes : 66

Posted 17 April 2018 - 06:33 PM

View PostGhost of Snead, on 16 April 2018 - 02:16 PM, said:

Please provide your list of defined and proper objectives.

Here's one from a list I've compiled, and I have boatloads of them.

What would one have to do in order to throw a club, like Jackie Burke Jr. fondly suggests, while having the body's weight go down into the shoes, as directed by Joe Norwood, instead of what usually happens-weight coming up out of the shoes, away from the ground.  The rest of the list is a closely guarded secret. :)

Edited by CoiledUP, 17 April 2018 - 06:47 PM.


24

#205 FatReed

FatReed

    FatReed

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 541 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 345469
  • Joined: 10/20/2014
GolfWRX Likes : 180

Posted 17 April 2018 - 07:44 PM

CoiledUp

As to not appear too rigid or one dimensional, I am going to acquiesce a bit in response to your statement regarding those that have an ‘established’ (efficient and repeatable) motion. . . which 90+% of golfers do not. Conversely, the 10% that do have an established motion, all learned their motion through proper focus on proper objective(s) - not through focus on the motion.

It should be noted that even when instructors work with the most proficient players having an established motion (and work on their motion), it seems the two most common comments are: (1) instructor ‘x’ helped player ‘y’ by NOT tinkering too much with the player’s natural (established) motion; Butch Harmon is reported to be notorious for this. (2) player ‘x’ wanted to get BETTER and, instead, got worse through trying to make ‘swing (motion) changes.’ In the latter regard, Lydia Ko and Luke Donald come straight to the top of my head, but the list is extensive.

In Lydia’s regard, as one example, people can say Leadbetter ruined her swing. First, people give instructors too much credit for the success and failure ‘their players’ achieve - at least with regard to ‘swing instruction.’ Second, I blame Lydia and Leadbetter equally for allowing her focus to shift from the proper (playing golf) to the improper (golf swing motion) objective. Next thing you know, Lydia is playing golf swing out on course, loses confidence, fires caddy, switches instructors, changes clubs, fires caddy again . . . you know the current state of the matter.

Long story short, the essential, which very few golfers ever achieve: the golfer must learn his/her motion through proper objective, which does not entail focusing on the motion. Toward this end, Lydia - like the WRX masses - needs to come full circle and find proper focus on proper objective again. She has given chase deep down the rabbit hole.

Although I have acquiesced a bit to your statements, I do so with significant hesitancy, as I believe focusing on the motion is rarely ever the most effective approach. . . certainly, NEVER in players who have not already ‘established’ their own motion.



25

#206 CoiledUP

CoiledUP

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 195 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 486052
  • Joined: 11/04/2017
GolfWRX Likes : 66

Posted 17 April 2018 - 08:06 PM

I agree FatReed-  don't throw the baby out with the bath water by changing the natural motion if there is nuanced sequence tightening involved.  A major league pitcher for example, who learned to throw as a kid, may change their stride length off the mound a little to tinker without significantly changing their overall motion.

26

#207 Mike Divot

Mike Divot

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 237 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 181510
  • Joined: 05/17/2012
GolfWRX Likes : 124

Posted 17 April 2018 - 09:22 PM

Here is a description of a real world situation that shows what FR is talking about. From an excellent site by a guy who really knows his stuff.

http://floridabaseba...thletes-part-1/

27

#208 Millbrook

Millbrook

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,514 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 216859
  • Joined: 12/20/2012
  • Location:East Yorkshire UK
GolfWRX Likes : 434

Posted 18 April 2018 - 04:12 AM

View PostFatReed, on 17 April 2018 - 07:44 PM, said:


Although I have acquiesced a bit to your statements, I do so with significant hesitancy, as I believe focusing on the motion is rarely ever the most effective approach. . . certainly, NEVER in players who have not already ‘established’ their own motion.

I think there is a lot of truth in this yet there is the issue of how efficient the 'established' motion is and what flaws are inherent in it. I'm thinking the higher handicapper here.

Effective learning should be a self managed discovery process which does involve a cognitive element of understanding. Jim Waldron has commented on the largely sub conscious swing map we have and how difficult it is to change the swing without changing that. I'm not claiming this is done solely by cognitive means but if our current map has subconscious elements we need to find a difference which makes the difference.

By example I have been working with my coach on better shaft lean at impact. I was looking at Tyler Ferrells book and there was an overhead picture of impact with the following comment;

'Most amateurs golfers are surprised when they see impact from overhead. Impact location for the club head is not directly in front of the chest, like at set up. It is actually behind your body, about 20-30 degrees to the right of it.'

In the text using the sternum as the point of reference he says 'The arms are slightly behind the body, with the club more behind it and the club face more closed to the shaft than you would imagine.

My coach had drawn me a picture showing how the closed club face was square when the hands were forward so this all fitted. I hadn't grasped the body positions needed to achieve this. I was trying to achieve it as an objective but didn't have the map to produce the needed motion.

I've only had chance to swing in the garden but it feels very different and I hope to go to the range today and try the motion with the objective of hitting the ball well and straight.

Edited by Millbrook, 18 April 2018 - 04:13 AM.

All comments are made from the point of
view of my learning and not a claim
to expertise.

28

#209 Hilts1969

Hilts1969

    Tour Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 863 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 378062
  • Joined: 05/28/2015
  • Location:Manchester
GolfWRX Likes : 242

Posted 19 April 2018 - 02:58 PM

I alternate the movement of the hips. First day I slide, second day I bump and third day I rotate. Fourth day I rest. Next 3 days I do the same in reverse order. At the end of the week I work out why I manage to hit good and bad shots using all 3. I believe we are supposed to fall now though like a mule has kicked you at the top of the backswing.

Bit stuck as there are only 7 days in the week and I don’t own a mule. Rest day is for checking out you tube golf drills so can’t fit it in then.



29

#210 FatReed

FatReed

    FatReed

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 541 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 345469
  • Joined: 10/20/2014
GolfWRX Likes : 180

Posted 21 April 2018 - 10:35 AM

I wanted to trail back . . . A fellow WRXer pointed out that not all modern golf instruction is in the dark ages, pointing me in the direction of the below video.

Kudos!!!



Edit: Technically, I guess I should have stated that not all modern golf INSTRUCTORS are in the dark ages.

Edited by FatReed, 21 April 2018 - 10:38 AM.


Remove This Advertisement Viewing As Guest

    GolfWRX Forums

    Advertisement


Wanna get rid of this ugly yellow box? And remove other annoying "stuff" in between posts? Create a FREE GolfWRX account here.

30



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

GolfWRX Sponsors