Connect with us

Instruction

Are you wasting your time on the putting green?

Published

on

As a teacher, I’m always investigating ways to help my players become more proficient both on the golf course and within their practice time. That’s why I am so excited to have come across one of the best books ever written on the subject of golf improvement, Mark Broadie’s Every Shot Counts, and if you are serious about moving your game to the next level I highly recommend that you find the time to read it.

Every Shot Counts tells the story of how conventional golf stats that we have all kept at one time or another can be misleading and can hamper your improvement. One of my favorite examples in the book is when Brody discusses the putts per round stat and how it can be flawed. Think about it: putts per round does not take into account the fact that many of a golfer’s putts might come after a chip shot, not an iron shot, and it doesn’t factor in how long or how short a putt is.

Brody suggests many other ways to look at putting in an effort to improve your approach and improve your scores. In this article, I’d like to show you how you might be diligently practicing your putting, but doing it in such a way that you are not improving as fast as you could or not improving at all!

There are two goals that every player should focus on while working on their putting:

  1. One-putting more often from the statistical distances that makes sense to your level of play.
  2. Eliminating three putts from the statistical distances that make sense to your level of play.

Here’s a chart that shows the probability of one-putting from different distances depending on a golfer’s ability level:

One Putting Table

Let’s examine a few of the data points in more detail:

  • For all players, any putt inside 2 feet is almost a guaranteed make.
  • For better players, 3-foot putts are almost a given unless something radical happens.
  • For golfers who shoot in the 90’s, 3-foot putts start to become an issue (84 percent success rate).
  • Between 5 and 8 feet, a tour professional’s proficiency drops off dramatically.
  • Between 5 to 8 feet, scratch golfers begin to show their putting weakness.
  • Outside of 5 feet, 90’s shooters have extreme difficulty one-putting.
  • At 10 feet, tour professional only make 40 percent of their putts.
  • At 20 feet, a 90’s shooter isn’t half as good as a scratch golfer, but the difference between a scratch player and a tour pro is a mere 1 percent.

The numbers show that tour pros should focus their practice on 8-to-10-foot putts and 90’s shooters are better off practicing putts of 4-to-10 feet. 90’s shooters should forget working on longer putts, with one putting short putts being their only goal.

Here’s a chart that shows the probability of golfers of different ability levels three-putting from different distances:

Three Putting Table

Let’s examine the data points in more detail:

  • Lag putting work from 20 feet and in is basically a waste of time for the tour pro and scratch player.
  • The idea of lag putting for 90’s shooters should begin at 20-to-25 feet.
  • For the tour pro and scratch player, the thought of lag putting should begin around 40 feet.
  • 50-to-60-foot putts for the average golfer spell “three putt.”

For the levels we have discussed, here’s the synopsis.

The tour pro does not have much to worry about until he gets to 50 feet, and if he can get the ball inside 8 feet on those putts he has a good chance of converting a two-putt. Secondly, on normal tour greens (a.k.a. not Augusta), a tour pro should not have that much trouble lagging the ball within 8 to 10 feet on even on the most difficult breaking putts, which still gives him a good chance to convert his two-putt.

Based on the data, tour pros should work on putts from 8 to 10 feet as well as those outside of 50 feet to use of their most effectively. .

Again, you can see that beginning around 55 to 60 feet tour pros need to become focused on lagging the ball close. However, these players have a buffer that’s unlike what you will see with the 90’s shooters. The 90’s shooters only make putts that are inside 5 feet 66 percent of the time. That’s why 90’s shooters should focus on becoming better short putters within the 5-to-10-foot range. Those putts will be much more important to their score than the putts they hit from 15-to-45 feet.

The 90’s shooters should instantly go into “lag mode” from 20 feet out, ensuring that they have the proper feel to snuggle the ball close to the hole from longer distances. Remember that the proficiency of the 90’s shooters from shorter distances basically states that until they get the ball within 5 feet, they will miss more than half their second putts.

So the key for the 90’s shooters is to become more proficient from 6-to-10 feet so that they have a better chance from longer ranges. As a 90’s shooter, if you don’t get your putts from 40 feet and out into a 5-foot circle around the hole, your chances of two putting diminishes greatly. That’s the pressure poor short putting puts on the lag putting for average golfers.

I hope by now you have seen the importance of understanding how to use the stats you can derive from charting your game based on the data provided by Broadie’s book.

The book also goes over stats for all parts of the game that you will find useful, but the one-versus-three-putting stuff hit me like a hammer. I, like you, practiced and wanted to become the best I could be, but it’s data like this that makes me just cringe thinking about how many wasted hours I spent on things that weren’t very statistically relevant to the big picture.

I hope this story saves you an hour or two during your life of golf!

Your Reaction?
  • 19
  • LEGIT4
  • WOW5
  • LOL2
  • IDHT0
  • FLOP0
  • OB2
  • SHANK3

Tom F. Stickney II is the Director of Instruction and Business Development at Punta Mita, in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico (www.puntamita.com) He is a Golf Magazine Top 100 Teacher, and has been honored as a Golf Digest Best Teacher and a Golf Tips Top-25 Instructor. Tom is also a Trackman University Master/Partner, a distinction held by less than 15 people in the world. Punta Mita is a 1500 acre Golf and Beach Resort located just 45 minuted from Puerto Vallarta on a beautiful peninsula surrounded by the Bay of Banderas on three sides. Amenities include two Nicklaus Signature Golf Courses- with 14 holes directly on the water, a Golf Academy, four private Beach Clubs, a Four Seasons Hotel, a St. Regis Hotel, as well as, multiple private Villas and Homesites available. For more information regarding Punta Mita, golf outings, golf schools and private lessons, please email: [email protected]

54 Comments

54 Comments

  1. Dave S

    Jul 10, 2014 at 1:24 pm

    Great article! I love advanced statistics in golf… very eye-opening.

    As devil’s advocate, couldn’t it also be said that for 90 shooters (who presumably don’t have very much time to dedicate to practice) that their time would be best used practicing their Driving? Every un-biased statisical analysis indicates that poor driving accounts for more strokes lost than poor short game (which runs counter to the old school notion of “Drive for show, putt for dough”), at least with less talented players. Hitting more fairways (i.e. less penalty strokes) is the quickest way to improve your score. That said, I think putting is probably the easiest thing to practice and to improve upon, so if a person has the time available, they should probably spend 75% of it on Driving and 25% on putting from 4-10 feet.

    Do you agree?

    • tom stickney

      Jul 10, 2014 at 3:04 pm

      All depends on the strengths and weaknesses of the player in general…I’d suggest a 90 shooter take a series of lessons on ALL parts of their game

      • Dave S

        Jul 10, 2014 at 3:16 pm

        Fair point… tough to argue that. But if you HAD to choose what to spend your very limited time on, I would probably suggest driving over putting, at least for the 90s shooter. A missed putt will (usually) only costs you one stroke… a wayward drive will cost you two at most decent courses.

    • Tom Stickney

      Jul 13, 2014 at 1:42 am

      It all depends on the player…but generally speaking you are correct.

      • Robert Erickson

        Jul 21, 2016 at 11:36 am

        I have played golf for most of my life. When I was young, I felt that I had to work on the “big” shots. However, as I have gotten older and have less time to practice and play, I feel that I should spend my practice time on 120 yards and in. You hit the driver 14-15 times a round and long and mid irons about the same. So you have hit 30-40 shots out of ninety or so. Anything you can do to improve on those 40-60 shots remaining will make you a better golfer. The putting message here is spot on.

  2. Rusty Carr

    Jul 9, 2014 at 3:28 pm

    Tom,

    Which would you say wastes more time on the putting green:
    A) Putting from the wrong distances
    or
    B) Putting with one or more of the following flaws
    -using a putter that is not fit for you,
    -putting using a wrong green read,
    -putting generating the wrong speed,
    -putting using flawed swing mechanics,
    -putting using a bad ball position?

    If you’ve got flaws, shouldn’t they be fixed before you try to “practice”? If you can’t read a green accurately, never heard of a lumpy doughnut, think that grain is a type of alcohol, don’t know which eye is dominant, haven’t got a clue whether you’re a screen door or pendulum putter, don’t have a routine, don’t know the difference between feel and method putting, don’t have a putter balanced to match your swing stroke type, start the ball rolling with a bounce and back spin, raise your head on contact, etc. then a lot of practice is a sure way to become a bad putter.

    Another way to interpret the statistics is that the methods they pros use to practice are better. Could it be possible that trying to change what is already working for them could make their statistics worse? Maybe there is a progression of things people should work on where putting from specific distances is the last thing on the list?

    • Tom Stickney

      Jul 9, 2014 at 6:06 pm

      I’m always of the opinion that a better fit roller is a necessity but most players never get them fit for reasons I’ll never understand. Great point.

  3. Marc S

    Jul 9, 2014 at 1:42 pm

    Great book. Learn how to apply and lower your stroke ave at our science and stat data driven training center- EBC Elite Training, located at PGA National Resort.
    EveryBallCounts.com

    • Tom Stickney

      Jul 9, 2014 at 1:56 pm

      Thx for your comments. Please don’t use this forum to advertise your services.

  4. Stretch

    Jul 9, 2014 at 12:47 pm

    The stat I use for putting efficiency is 2 putts for greens hit in regulation or better and one putt for greens missed. A 24 putt day hitting 6 greens would be the equivalent of 36 putts when all 18 greens are hit. The total putts over are under the day’s putting par is the stat that shows the relationship between the short game and putting as a cohesive unit. Referred stat I call the “Short Game Index” or SGI for shortness.

    No matter what level of swing ability and physical talent, golfers all can learn how to score better by learning how to hit the short game shots as close as possible and then rely on the flat stick when not possible.

  5. Ben Peters

    Jul 9, 2014 at 12:30 pm

    Great piece. This was an eye opener for me. I’m a 12 handicap whose favorite thing on the practice green is to go out 20-30 feet and roll a few balls at the hole. My hope being that by the third ball seeing the read I might be able to knock one down. The reality is when I walk up to my three misses my two putt conversion rate is poor. I will still practice lag putts from time to time obviously, but this piece has convinced me that it makes way more sense for me to stay in that 5-10 foot range for the lions share of my practice time and increase my success rate there.

    • Tom Stickney

      Jul 9, 2014 at 1:57 pm

      Thx Ben

    • Fred

      Jul 12, 2014 at 2:03 pm

      Excellent article, Tom, and I’ll be sure to check out Mark Broadie’s book.

      A while back, I was listening to Lee Trevenio talk about putting, and he mentioned how Ben Hogan never put too much emphases on that part of the game. Believe he said Snead was the same way. Hogan believed that what transpired on the fairway to be of more importance; he figured it didn’t matter how good you were with a putter if you couldn’t get the ball on the green in a timely manner. Of course, that will never keep me from the putting green.

      On another note: for those golfers who like to take two or three balls on the putting green, here’s something I learned from Ben Crenshaw during a Pro-Am at the AT&T championship in San Antonio. When you practice putting, only use one ball. Anyone can make puts after watching what the first ball does. But when you’re actually playing, you only have one chance. Go with what you feel is the correct read and see if you’re right.

  6. John J

    Jul 9, 2014 at 9:24 am

    Hi Tom,

    Interesting piece, however I would like to present a counter point / caveat to this analysis.

    To say that putting inside 5 feet is not a worthwhile exercise for the scratch or tour player is, in my opinion, not accurate. Your analysis falls short in that it does not take into account the total number of attempts from those distances. Based on the total number of attempts that actually occur within 5 feet of the hole, becoming extremely proficient in this area will absolutely help lower score. To present my case with data, the average PGA Tour player attempts about 11 putts per round inside 5 feet of the hole, however they only attempt about 3 putts in the 5 to 10 foot range. If you take the difference between the best and worst player statistically on tour in each of these two ranges, the difference is the same, about 0.85 strokes gained / lost per round. So they are identical in importance to score, and in fact I would argue that if I were to choose one, I’d rather practice those putts inside 5 feet because more is left up to my stroke than the rub of the green.

    If we take this out and compare an average scratch player to an average Tour player, the difference inside 5 feet is 1.06 strokes lost per round, whereas the 5 to 10 foot range is only a 0.49 strokes lost per round.

    One more analysis comparing the 90’s player to a scratch player, the difference inside 5 feet is 1.17 strokes per round, and the 5 to 10 foot range is only .46 strokes lost per round.

    The big caveat here is the number of attempts per round, and this is where this analysis fails in my opinion. Putts inside 5 feet happens so much more frequently that it becomes critically important to improving score.

    There is a saying “there are liars, there are damn liars, and then there are statistics!” I love the data driven direction that golf has taken but I would just caution players to sit down and analyze where their game falls short and set out a plan of action that involves reducing the absolute value of their score, not improving some percentage because we feel like its too low and can be improved easily.

    Hope this was helpful to everyone!

    • Stevo212

      Jul 9, 2014 at 10:10 am

      I completely agree, if a scratch golfer falls below the tour benchmark then they will lose a hell of a lot if they miss within 5 foot. Therefore it is definately beneficial to practice that length. Be aware that this is also only an average number, if you look at the guys making money on the PGA Tour with sub 105mph driver speeds (almost all amateur club golfers) there putts within the range of 3-5 feet are around 90-95% as this is the only area that can make up there score purely down to physical differences. Practising long distance putting is an area that will bring little benefit to your scores but if you can get 90%+ on 3-5 foot putts you will definately improve your scores, plus this will take a lot of pressure off chipping and pitching

      • Tom Stickney

        Jul 9, 2014 at 2:07 pm

        Agree to a point. Thx for your thoughts sir.

    • Tom Stickney

      Jul 9, 2014 at 2:05 pm

      Couldn’t agree more but if a tour player has 11 five footers they better hit more greens 🙂

      • John J

        Jul 9, 2014 at 3:38 pm

        Tom, I think you may have missed part of my point here. According to PGAtour.com stats, the average tour player in 2014 takes 11 shots per round inside of 5 feet. They only take an average of 3 shots per round in the 5 to 10 foot range. Think about it this way, if you were to create a scatter plot of your putts in a round, the data points (each putt taken) would get much more dense and concentrated as you get nearer to the hole. To demonstrate this point, according to PGAtour.com, an average tour player is just as likely to have a 3 to 5 footer as a 5 to 10 footer.

        Practicing 5 to 10 footers is just as important as the 3 to 5 footers, it just may seem that you miss more 5 to 10 footers but that’s because they are in fact harder to make! Luke Donald putts the lights out and he leads the tour at 68% of putts made in that range. The reason those putts are so much harder is that more is left up to variability in the greens, your read of the break, putt speed starts to become a factor and the fact that there is less room for error when hitting the putt (i.e. 1 degree of mis-hit gets larger as you get further away from the putter blade).

        • Gerald

          Jul 16, 2014 at 7:49 pm

          But many of those 11 shots inside of 5 feet are actually in tap-in range. And they are probably already very good at that range hence they are tour players. If they can make 1 more of those 5-10 footers each round they can gain much more on their competitors.

          In ESC Brodie points out that even though 50% of your shots come on the green (theoretically) many are tap-ins others are from such a long distance that making them is very unlikely so putting really makes up only about 15% of the game.

          Also the article is arguing that to become better than a 90-golfer then one ahould practices putts of distance that they can reasonably improve upon. Especially given the limited practice time for most recreational golfers.

  7. Dennis Clark

    Jul 8, 2014 at 7:06 pm

    Tom Nieporte, great pro and player at the Winged Foot Club for many years,(and a wonderful man) believed that the most important shots in the round were the 18 first putts! An interesting way to think about it. He won on Tour so I listened 🙂

  8. Putting Pro

    Jul 8, 2014 at 3:21 pm

    Good artcile

    Practice short putts, medium putts and long putts. Keep it simple.

    Place an alignment stick behind the hole and try not to hit the stick. This teaches pace and speed.

    • tom stickney

      Jul 8, 2014 at 8:02 pm

      Simple is usually better when working on feel for sure…

  9. Pingback: Are you wasting your time on the putting green? - I'd Rather Be Golfing

  10. RobG

    Jul 8, 2014 at 11:26 am

    Back in college me and a buddy couldn’t afford to play but we would go to the nearest course and spend hours on the practice area. We would play a game where we would each take turns picking a spot around the practice green to hit from (different thickness of grass, different lies)and picking which hole we would play to sometimes we even took it a step further and we stipulated which club we had to use and the idea was to get up and down in the fewest strokes possible.

    Being in college the going rate was a beer a hole.

    My short game, especially my putting, was always my weakness and when we first started practicing together it wasn’t pretty. Eric was a good hockey player with great hands and even though he didn’t play nearly as much as I did he had me down a couple of cases of beer in no time.

    Being broke college students, playing for beer definitely cranked up the pressure (especially when I pressed) and it made those putts inside 12 feet so much harder to make. They say you have to practice like you play, and practicing the way we did definitely mimicked true play on the golf course. Now when I’m faced with a tough up and down or a 12 footer for par I imagine I’m playing against Eric and I’ve pressed twice and I need to make it or I’m down a case of beer.

    No amount of time aimlessly slapping putt after putt on the practice green can prepare you for those types of situations.

  11. AJ Jensen

    Jul 8, 2014 at 11:09 am

    How many times have you heard ‘I read a break that just wasn’t there?’ Overanalysis. And I have never ONCE seen a plumb-bobber sink one from twenty feet or further. Overthinking. The only thing that ever made a difference in my putting was to go with my first instinct and just hit the ball, trusting my eyes to read the breaks. If anything I’ve learned that people overcompensate for breaks more than they underestimate breaks.

    In every scramble I’ve ever played I’m the best putter, and everyone is mystified at why I want to have the first whack at every putt. I have learned that my brain works against me on putts for the longer I think them over, and I second-guess good decisions.

    • Tom Stickney

      Jul 8, 2014 at 2:16 pm

      You must gravitate to what works best for you under the gun

    • 8802

      Jul 8, 2014 at 5:28 pm

      Ben Crenshaw plumb bobbed.

  12. Tom

    Jul 8, 2014 at 11:05 am

    Thanks for the article Tom. It confirms how i’ve been practicing is correct.
    I’m pretty mechanical and my practice is the same way, for lag putting I have target distances that I take the putter back a certain length for. Walk off 12yards (36feet) it gets a certain length backstroke. Walk of 18yards (54feet) and that gets a certain length backstroke. As long as my tempo and contact is consistent the putts roll out consistently the same. I can adjust from there for in between distances.

    • Tom Stickney

      Jul 8, 2014 at 2:17 pm

      Nice to have the data to back it up…great work.

  13. Mike

    Jul 8, 2014 at 9:13 am

    There is a book out called “Lowest Score Wins” that goes over this too. I am so glad that guys like you and others are bringing this to our attention to help us practice better.

    I’m a 5 and rarely putt from 3-20ft instead focusing on putting 3ft putts and 20’+. Guess how well I get up and down?! I have to chip it to 3′ every time to get up and down and so I focus on chipping it closer which isn’t bad, but you can’t get it to 3′ every time and being better inside 10′ will alleviate the stress on your round. This reminds me of someone asking Harvey Penick for help putting and he told them to go grab their 7i and come with him. When the person reiterated that he needed help with his putting Penick told him that his problem was he wasn’t hitting it close enough to the hole!

    • Tom Stickney

      Jul 8, 2014 at 10:06 am

      Mike– I have not seen that one; I’ll pick it up. Thx

      • snowman

        Jul 8, 2014 at 1:43 pm

        Lowest Score Wins is a great book; the authors cite a few of Broadies findings, but they have a lot of original stats and thoughts as well.. Website Below:
        http://lowestscorewins.com

  14. Pingback: Are you wasting your time on the putting green? | Spacetimeandi.com

  15. Justin

    Jul 7, 2014 at 8:41 pm

    Great article!! Always nice to get some stats to help practice more efficiently.

  16. Matt

    Jul 7, 2014 at 8:28 pm

    Tour players but in perfect greens every week

    Scratch players put on perfect greens a couple times of year unless they belong to an elite club

    • Tom Stickney

      Jul 8, 2014 at 12:02 am

      Agree but the same general ideas still work.

    • MHendon

      Jul 8, 2014 at 12:05 am

      Definitely makes a difference especially on short putts.

      • Tom Stickney

        Jul 8, 2014 at 1:09 am

        MH- sometimes shorter putts are easier if the greens are slower. Bang it in there.

  17. Philip

    Jul 7, 2014 at 8:13 pm

    Thanks, I guess I have been too hard on myself as I was putting 90-95% from 5 feet for the first month of the season and felt I should have been able to maintain it.

  18. Jeremy

    Jul 7, 2014 at 8:08 pm

    Rancho Park, woo!

    I always wondered about this kind of thing. Not long ago decided my time would best be spent ensuring that I convert those rare birdie chances from close range, and doing my best to two-putt from long range. Putts in that middle range sort of take care of themselves; either I two-putt without much difficulty or I get lucky and sink it. Nice to see that data backs this up.

    • Tom Stickney

      Jul 7, 2014 at 8:24 pm

      The data is solid for sure. Great book

  19. Dan P

    Jul 7, 2014 at 7:53 pm

    I read the book earlier this year and took the same thing away. Altered my practice routine on the green to focus on putts 6-10 feet (I’m a 5 handicap) as increasing my make percentage here is huge. I used to focus on 3-5 foot range almost exclusively outside of lag putting. His drills for lag putting are great too! Can’t recommend it enough, nice article.

    • Tom Stickney

      Jul 7, 2014 at 8:24 pm

      Thx.

      • John

        Jul 7, 2014 at 9:54 pm

        If you watch your average amateur golf on the practice green, you will see 99% of them practicing 20 footers because that’s how the holes are spaced on the green. This gets people nowhere, and maybe even worse than than that because they are using three balls most of the time. If their first putt isn’t effective they compensate who know’s how, alter stroke, unknowingly change their stance, some sort of instant compensation. I never see anyone read a putt. They are basically just slapping it around.
        I quit doing this a few years ago because it didn’t make any sense to me. Now I take 5 balls and throw them down just off the fringe and use a variety of clubs to bump and run them up to the various holes, and then grab my putter and carefully try and putt them in. I keep track of my “ups and downs”. I do this 50 times, i.e. 5 balls x 10. I am a single digit and these approaches are not difficult shots so I end up with a lot of 6 foot and in putts. This has really helped my scoring.Now my course allows this sort of low impact chipping, but others may not, but it’s a great drill to do that seems to be backed up by the research in this book reinforced by Tom’s article.
        This is an excellent piece, Tom, and can lead to substantial improvement for many golfers. You can’t say that about too many instructional articles in my opinion.

        • paul

          Jul 7, 2014 at 10:40 pm

          I do something similar. I use one ball at a time and try and get up and down to each hole on the practice green. Once I make it up and down to each hole I move my bag and clubs 5-8 steps around the green clockwise. Takes an hour to go all the way around the green. Lots of variety.

          • Tom Stickney

            Jul 8, 2014 at 12:03 am

            Keeping things fun is the key

          • John

            Jul 8, 2014 at 2:26 am

            Paul, I like your routine better than mine, and I’m going to do that myself. It simulates “on the course golf” better than my approach. I mean, how many times do you hit 5 chips in a row in actual play?

            Thanks for the suggestion.

        • Tom Stickney

          Jul 8, 2014 at 12:02 am

          Thx!!

        • Tom Stickney

          Jul 8, 2014 at 12:03 am

          Thx John!

Leave a Reply

Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Instruction

What to look for in a golf instructor: The difference between transformative and transactional coaching

Published

on

Golf instruction comes in all different styles, methods, and formats. With that said, you would think this would be a good thing due to there being so many different types of people in the world. However, it is my opinion that the lack of standardization within the industry makes it confusing for the athlete to determine what kind of golf instruction they should seek out.

Before we can discuss what may or may not be the best type of instruction for yourself, first we need to know what our options are. Whether we are taking a “broad-spectrum approach” to learning or a more personalized approach, it is important to understand that there are differences to each, and some approaches are going to take longer than others to reach goals.

Broad-Spectrum Approach

Welcome to the world of digital golf instruction, where tips from the most famous coaches in the world are a click away. The great thing about the internet and social media for a golfer is there has never been more access to the top minds in the field—and tips and drills are plentiful. With that said, with there being so many choices and differing opinions, it can be very easy to become distracted with the latest tip and can lead to a feeling of being lost.

I would describe “internet coaching”—or YouTube and Instagram surfing—as transactional coaching. You agree to pay, either a monthly fee or provide likes or follows and the professional provides very generalized tips about the golf swing. For athletes that are new to golf or golf instruction, this tends to be the first part of their process.

There are people who prefer a more transactional approach, and there are a ton of people having success working together over the internet with their coach. With that said, for someone who is looking for more of a long-term individualized approach, this may not be the best approach. This broad-spectrum approach also tends to be the slowest in terms of development due to there being a lot of trial and error due to the generalized approach and people having different body types.

Individual Transactional Coaching

Most people who are new to golf instruction will normally seek out their local pro for help. Depending on where you live in the country, what your local pro provides will vary greatly. However, due to it being local and convenient, most golfers will accept this to be the standard golf lesson.

What makes this type of instruction transactional is that there tends to be less long-term planning and it is more of a sick patient-doctor relationship. Lessons are taken when needed and there isn’t any benchmarking or periodization being done. There also tends to be less of a relationship between the coach and player in this type of coaching and it is more of a take it or leave it style to the coaching.

For most recreational or club-level players, this type of coaching works well and is widely available. Assuming that the method or philosophies of the coach align with your body type and goals athletes can have great success with this approach. However, due to less of a relationship, this form of coaching can still take quite some time to reach its goals.

Individual Transformative Coaching

Some people are very lucky, and they live close to a transformative coach, and others, less lucky, have had to search and travel to find a coach that could help them reach their goals. Essentially, when you hire a transformative coach, you are being assigned a golf partner.

Transformative coaching begins with a solid rapport that develops into an all-encompassing relationship centered around helping you become your very best. Technology alone doesn’t make a coach transformative, but it can help when it comes to creating periodization of your development. Benchmarks and goals are agreed upon by both parties and both parties share the responsibility for putting in the work.

Due to transformative coaching tending to have larger goals, the development process tends to take some time, however, the process is more about attainment than achievement. While improved performance is the goal, the periods for both performance and development are defined.

Which One is Right for You?

It really depends on how much you are willing to invest in your development. If you are looking for a quick tip and are just out enjoying the weather with your friends, then maybe finding a drill or two on Instagram to add to your practice might be the ticket. If you are looking to really see some improvement and put together a plan for long-term development, then you are going to have to start looking into what is available in your area and beyond.

Some things to consider when selecting a coach

  • Do they use technology?
  • What are their qualifications when it comes to teaching?
  • Do they make you a priority?

As a golf coach who has access to the most state-of-the-art technology in the industry, I am always going to be biased towards a data-driven approach. That doesn’t mean that you should only consider a golf coach with technology, however, I believe that by having data present, you are able to have a better conversation about the facts with less importance placed on personal preference. Technology also tends to be quite expensive in golf, so be prepared if you go looking for a more high-tech coaching experience, as it is going to cost more than the low-tech alternative.

The general assumption is that if the person you are seeking advice from is a better player than you are, then they know more about the golf swing than you do. This is not always the case, while the better player may understand their swing better than you do yours, that does not make them an expert at your golf swing. That is why it is so important that you consider the qualifications of your coach. Where did they train to coach? Do they have success with all of their players? Do their players develop over a period of time? Do their players get injured? All things to consider.

The most important trait to look for in a transformative coach is that they make you a priority. That is the biggest difference between transactional and transformative coaches, they are with you during the good and bad, and always have your best interest top of mind. Bringing in other experts isn’t that uncommon and continuing education is paramount for the transformative coach, as it is their duty to be able to meet and exceed the needs of every athlete.

Your Reaction?
  • 23
  • LEGIT2
  • WOW1
  • LOL0
  • IDHT1
  • FLOP1
  • OB0
  • SHANK9

Continue Reading

Instruction

The importance of arm structure

Published

on

How the arms hang at address plays a vital role in the golf swing. Often overlooked, the structure in which we place the arms can dictate one’s swing pattern. As mentioned in the article How Posture influences your swing, if you start in an efficient position, impact is much easier to find making, the golf swing more repeatable and powerful.

To start, I opt to have a player’s trail arm bent and tucked in front of them with angle in the trail wrist. While doing so, the trail shoulder can drop below the lead with a slight bend from the pelvis. This mirrors an efficient impact position.

I always prefer plays to have soft and slightly bent arms. This promotes arm speed in the golf swing. No other sports are played with straight arms, neither should golf.

From this position, it’s easier to get the clubhead traveling first, sequencing the backswing into a dynamic direction of turn.

@peterthomson

When a player addresses the ball with straight arms, they will often tilt with their upper body in the backswing. This requires more recovery in the downswing to find their impact position with the body.

A great drill to get the feeling of a soft-bent trail arm is to practice pushing a wall with your trail arm. Start in your golf set-up, placing your trail hand against the wall. You will instinctively start with a bent trail arm.

Practice applying slight pressure to the wall to get the feeling of a pushing motion through impact?. When trying the drill with a straight trail alarm, you will notice the difference between the two? arm structures.

www.kelleygolf.com

Your Reaction?
  • 43
  • LEGIT13
  • WOW3
  • LOL1
  • IDHT1
  • FLOP1
  • OB1
  • SHANK6

Continue Reading

Instruction

What is ground force in the golf swing?

Published

on

There is no doubt about it, the guys and gals on tour have found something in the ground—and that something is power and speed. I’m sure by now you have heard of “ground reaction forces”—and I’m not talking about how you “shift your weight” during the golf swing.

Ground force in the golf swing: Pressure and force are not equal

With respect to ground force in the golf swing, it’s important to understand the difference between pressure and force. Pressure is your perception of how your weight is being balanced by the structure, in this case, the human body. Your body has a center of mass which is located roughly one inch behind the belt buckle for men and about one inch lower in women. When we shift (translate and/or torque) the center of mass, we create a pressure shift as the body has to “rebalance” the mass or body. This pressure shift can help us understand some aspects of the golf swing, but when it comes to producing power, force and torque are where it’s at.

Pressure can only be expressed in relation to the mass or weight of the body. Therefore, if you weigh 150 pounds, you can only create 150 pounds of pressure at one time. However, when we direct that mass at a larger object than our mass, all of a sudden that larger mass directs an opposite and equal reactionary force. So now, when a human being “pushes” their legs against the ground and “feels” 150 pounds of pressure, they now get 150 pounds of force directed back towards them from the ground, creating a total of 300 pounds of force that allows them to jump off the ground in this scenario.

If ground reaction forces don’t have anything to do with the “weight shift,” then what do they affect? Everything!

Most people use the same basic ingredients to make chocolate chip cookies. However, almost everyone has chocolate chip cookies that taste slightly different. Why is that? That is because people are variable and use the ingredients in different amounts and orders. When we create a golf swing, whether we are aware of it or not, we are using the same basic ingredients as everyone else: lateral force, vertical torque, and vertical force. We use these same three forces every time we move in space, and how much and when we use each force changes the outcome quite a bit.

Welcome to the world of 3D!

Understanding how to adjust the sequencing and magnitude of these forces is critical when it comes to truly owning and understand your golf swing. The good news is that most of our adjustments come before the swing and have to do with how we set up to the ball. For example, if an athlete is having a hard time controlling low point due to having too much lateral force in the golf swing (fats and thins), then we narrow up the stance width to reduce the amount of lateral force that can be produced in the swing. If an athlete is late with their vertical force, then we can square up the lead foot to promote the lead leg straightening sooner and causing the vertical force to happen sooner.

While we all will need to use the ground differently to play our best golf, two things need to happen to use the ground effectively. The forces have to exist in the correct kinetic sequence (lateral, vertical torque, vertical force), and the peaks of those forces need to be created within the correct windows (sequencing).

  • Lateral force – Peak occurs between top-of-swing and lead arm at 45 degrees
  • Vertical torque – Peak occurs between lead arm being 45 degrees and the lead arm being parallel to the ground.
  • Vertical force – Peak occurs between lead arm being parallel to the ground the club shaft being parallel to the ground.

While it may seem obvious, it’s important to remember ground reaction forces are invisible and can only be measured using force plates. With that said, their tends to be apprehension about discussing how we use the ground as most people do not have access to 3D dual force plates. However, using the screening process designed by Mike Adams, Terry Rowles, and the BioSwing Dynamics team, we can determine what the primary forces used for power production are and can align the body in a way to where the athlete can access his/her full potential and deliver the club to the ball in the most effective and efficient way based off their predispositions and anatomy.

In addition to gaining speed, we can help athletes create a better motion for their anatomy. As golfers continue to swing faster, it is imperative that they do so in a manner that doesn’t break down their body and cause injury. If the body is moving how it is designed, and the forces acting on the joints of the body are in the correct sequence and magnitude, not only do we know they are getting the most out of their swing, but we know that it will hold up and not cause an unforeseen injury down the road.

I truly believe that force plates and ground reaction forces will be as common as launch monitors in the near future. Essentially, a launch monitor measures the effect and the force plates measure the cause, so I believe we need both for the full picture. The force plate technology is still very expensive, and there is an educational barrier for people seeking to start measuring ground reaction forces and understanding how to change forces, magnitudes, and sequences, but I’m expecting a paradigm shift soon.

 

Your Reaction?
  • 79
  • LEGIT16
  • WOW8
  • LOL7
  • IDHT3
  • FLOP8
  • OB5
  • SHANK55

Continue Reading

WITB

Facebook

Trending