We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Another golf coach knocking the modern swing...

c.a.eleric said:
i think you're talking about casual golfers, and i don't think those guys know what aoa is or have any idea what this kind of a doppler-based lesson is. they know the jacked up sim at their local big box store, that's it. heck, those casual golfers don't even get lessons.

an interesting question is should the instructor turn the monitor around? instead of, "here, let's look at these numbers together," maybe it makes more sense for the instructor to use that information but keep it to themselves, and just focus on the drills/swing thoughts/lesson plan. i remember jim telling me that finding out his ss on flightscope in tampa really messed with his mind because it was lower than he thought, and he feels like he has been swinging out of his shoes trying to correct that with very poor results. so i can see how it could be a problem when used improperly.
Click to expand...

I see your point about the instructor breaking it down into terms the lesson can understand. Sharing the numbers with the student is clouding the message.
 
I think technology has a place in teaching and can be a tool the instructor uses to help the student and to have a way if showing the student results of changes along with the visual from the ball flight of an outdoor lesson.

i agree there are too many chasing numbers of optimum spin, launch, AoA, descent angle, etc and not focusing on getting a repeatable swing. My current instructor uses trackman and camera during lessons and we have never gone over numbers nor does he teach to get a certain number. We use the data as comparison between where we started and where we are at.
 
blugold said:
I believe the tendency to rely on strength training comprised of isolation based movements is a large contributing factor. I don't understand why trainers use isolated movements with athletes when there is no athletic movement that isolates muscles. I'm not a fan of "core specific" lifts either. I'm not a doctor, a licensed physical therapist, or a certified personal trainer.
Click to expand...

This is where I expected you to go with the subject, and I agree with you. People are quick to point at Tiger and say that lifting is bad, but I'm not sure any of those naysayers have any idea what type of exercises Tiger was focusing on. Tiger may very well have worked on compound muscle movements, but he may have done too much (weight) and/or too often for him. In which case ego would be the problem and not the exercises.
 
-CRW- said:
This is where I expected you to go with the subject, and I agree with you. People are quick to point at Tiger and say that lifting is bad, but I'm not sure any of those naysayers have any idea what type of exercises Tiger was focusing on. Tiger may very well have worked on compound muscle movements, but he may have done too much (weight) and/or too often for him. In which case ego would be the problem and not the exercises.
Click to expand...
If I remember right, Tiger did a lot of bilateral training and I think that is also a bad idea.
 
If they are talking number and positions like p1 p3 ect then I agree. But that is actually fairly old teaching with cameras and position. If anything golf is going away from that with trackman that focuses on the club head numbers and not the position of the shaft when it is horizontal to the ground on the down swing.
 
I don't think there's anything wrong with numbers. They're there to enlighten, inform and liberate, rather than paralyze.

True, one can be overwhelmed by the information, but that's like saying a 50-year old is overwhelmed by the Internet. It's always about how one uses these tools to his advantage.
 
theoverswinger said:
I don't think there's anything wrong with numbers. They're there to enlighten, inform and liberate, rather than paralyze.

True, one can be overwhelmed by the information, but that's like saying a 50-year old is overwhelmed by the Internet. It's always about how one uses these tools to his advantage.
Click to expand...

And then they blame the computer (numbers) when the Internet (swing) doesn't do what they want it to do.
 
Interesting article. I was a GolfTec geek but honestly I felt like I got to a point that the "numbers" was not getting me any further. Now I've done a total 180 and have a golf coach that is more about finesse and feel and I could not be happier. Ironically I learned more about the golf swing working with Bob Tays than I did in 18 months working with GolfTec. It's not that GolfTec was bad, it's just that it I was chasing the numbers. With Bob, it's more of "does it feel and look right?". The technical side got me from an 18 handicap to a 7.5 but I was stuck there. Now I feel like I'll be in the low single digits by the end of this season.
 
wubears71 said:
Interesting article. I was a GolfTec geek but honestly I felt like I got to a point that the "numbers" was not getting me any further. Now I've done a total 180 and have a golf coach that is more about finesse and feel and I could not be happier. Ironically I learned more about the golf swing working with Bob Tays than I did in 18 months working with GolfTec. It's not that GolfTec was bad, it's just that it I was chasing the numbers. With Bob, it's more of "does it feel and look right?". The technical side got me from an 18 handicap to a 7.5 but I was stuck there. Now I feel like I'll be in the low single digits by the end of this season.
Click to expand...

That's nothing to sneeze at. Makes me want to look hard at GolfTec.
 
Is golftec really even high tec anymore? Those vests and cameras are probably 15 years old.
 
-CRW- said:
That's nothing to sneeze at. Makes me want to look hard at GolfTec.
Click to expand...
Don't get me wrong. GolfTec is a tremendous teaching experience. However, I just got to a point that swinging in a simulator with a net 20 feet from my contact position was not getting me where I wanted to be. The Green/Gray/Red numbers began to become a chase and I was just doing things that my body can no longer do.
 
ntanygd760 said:
Is golftec really even high tec anymore? Those vests and cameras are probably 15 years old.
Click to expand...

Once you become aware of the swing mechanics all you need is a GoPro.
I took lessons from Golftec for almost a year - it only made me aware of what my swing looked like.
My instructor was totally clueless on how to get from point A to B.
It did not help me get better in fact Golftec made me discouraged.
I say find a "good" interested Professional first, then use video as a reference.
 
Last edited:
It's like anything else, and as others have said, find out what numbers are important to you. It may depend on your swing issue.

On pitches, my instructor has me looking at launch angle (30 degrees), path, and spin.

With driver, it might be angle of attack, launch, backspin and path

With irons, we are usually looking at path because that's my issue - too much in to out.

The key may be to use numbers wisely and not too many.
 
As someone currently going thru series of lessons at Golftec, just wanted to say I have not found them to be overly obsessed with numbers. 90% of our work is focused on camera-related feedback from my actual swing and swing thoughts, not "numbers" from the launch monitor thing. Sometimes, he will use the spin number to confirm the difference between 2 swings but we have not gotten heavy into its use. My understanding is their machine has less "bells and whistles" than a Trackman anyway.

If anyone is more into the numbers, it's me and I've noticed I look at the monitor/number after every shot. I probably should focus more on feel, but often I think I'm doing something right but the camera confirms I've not made the required change.

Just like anything in life, balance is the key as others said.
 
The problem these days for any coach, golf or whatever, is the amount of numbers based systems that are there to help with fault finding and fine tuning, can themselves be responsible for the end users having different problems.

The new breed of golf teachers are taught what to teach based on current technology and wisdom. That in itself is not a bad thing, and I would guess that it would help more people than it hinders. We have to bear in mind that no two people are built the same and so no two swings are the same so my the numbers that work for me being 5' 8.5" and 150lbs age 54 are unlikely to be good for another guy with the same weight/height etc.

Every golf swing out there, whether pro or hacker, has compromises somewhere within it. The old breed of teachers need to accept that modern technology is a tool that needs to be used in conjunction with their experience to get the best for each individual client, and by the same token, the new breed of teachers need to accept that whilst the numbers will help, they are not the holy grail. Just a starting point.

Too much information for the client will almost certainly give them way too many swing thoughts and cloud the whole issue. What we as golfers need are reasons for doing something in a swing rather than just being told to do a particular thing.

Chasing the numbers or a particular swing thought will not necessarily cause back issues. Chasing in the wrong way may well do though.
 
Hamfist said:
WooHoo!! Muffintopper here too!!
Click to expand...

everybody knows the muffintop is the best part. bigger is better, right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top