"Golfing Machine", "Natural Golf(s)", physics, etc.

"Golfing Machine", "Natural Golf(s)", physics, etc.

Post by Mark Merri » Tue, 09 Jan 1996 04:00:00


Quote:

> [awesome stuff snipped]

Wow.  I've read Brent's post three times over and can't find a single
sentence I can argue with, or haven't said myself at some time.  Right
on, Brent.  And guess what?  Apply these thoughts to more serious
things than golf, and you have yourself a pretty good outlook any way
you cut it.  Funny how that happens.  ;-)

Regards,
Mark
[Taking a break from digging out of this NE USA blizzard]

 
 
 

"Golfing Machine", "Natural Golf(s)", physics, etc.

Post by hu.. » Tue, 09 Jan 1996 04:00:00


Quote:
>From an instructors point of view let me tell you this.  Not everyone who
>comes to you has the ability to hit a golf ball.  If 10 students come to
>you 9 will try to hit the ball in their usuall manner, NO MATTER WHAT YOU
>SHOW THEM.  They will not change because they are afraid to go through a
>period of missing the ball. Only 1 out of 10 will do what you tell him and
>he will be the one to stand out. A GOOD instructor will not try to sell a  
>certain method, he will insert or correct components that need fixing or
>correction.

Absolutely. This is my biggest recommendation to a golf teacher. For the
many students who are unwilling to change, the room for improvement is
limited. However, the good teacher will at least come up with ways to
help the students make whatever changes are possible within their frame
of mind at that time. Maybe minor changes, but at least they are ready to
line up a bit straighter or finish with a little better balance or learn to keep
a steadier rhythm on a less-than-full pitching wedge shot -- things that
will help their game marginally but noticably.

If the teacher can help the student make small but productive changes in
some part of their game, most students will gain a measure of trust in the
teacher and eventually open their minds to the possibilities of not attacking
the ball the same way they always have. With some people this is an awful
lot to hope for, but the potential is there in most of us. As you know, a
teacher measures himself/herself in terms of how much of the student's
potential is realized, not in terms of absolute results. Of course, nowadays
we are fascinated with celebrity swing gurus who have a stable of famous
and successful tour players, which kind of distracts from the idea of the
teacher as a helper to the hacker who can acheive more modest results.

-------------
Brent Hutto


 
 
 

"Golfing Machine", "Natural Golf(s)", physics, etc.

Post by Dane Arthur Ell » Tue, 09 Jan 1996 04:00:00

Brent:

 I have to agree. For me I guess the discussion of the physics of golf
does give some insight into how golfers with different physical
characteristics achieve power in their swings. Woosnam with his small
stature and small arc shouldn't be close to say Davis Love in distance.
Still Woosnam is a long hitter. I have made feeble attempts to explain
this paradox, but most often end up with the D.T.'s (sorry Dave :-). That
is I think I see something and then the cure arrives. One thing is certain
though, if we continue to follow the discussions, we will eventually master
physics.

 Getting back to your main topic, I think what Nicklaus says is probably
the best way I have for rationalizing what on the surface seem to be
conflicting theories. He talks about the position at impact:

  "Good methods are not designed to produce precise angles of
 the wrists, or photogenic top-of-the-backswing postures or perfect
 follow-throughs."

 Then what is the goal of swing theory:

  "That goal is a particular relationship of the golfer to his club, and
   through that of his club to the ball, at IMPACT."

 Essentially what he is saying is there is only one correct way to deliver
the club to the ball, but this delivery can be achieved through a variety
of methods.

 Now one can see why a particular swing theory must be taken as a package.
It is suddenly clear that Dante's early wrist break, Diegel's one piece
take-away or Hogan's weak grip don't have anything to do with each other.
They are simply parts of competing theories and have to be viewed as such.
Included in another theory, they may have no meaning at all.

D.E.

 
 
 

"Golfing Machine", "Natural Golf(s)", physics, etc.

Post by ted ballme » Tue, 09 Jan 1996 04:00:00


Newsgroups: rec.sport.golf
Subject: Re: "Golfing Machine", "Natural Golf(s)", physics, etc.
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 1996 02:44:54
Organization: GNN
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Quote:
>Physics as applied to everyday things like the golf swing, flight of
>the golf ball and so forth are fascinating. However, I don't believe
>that one person in a hundred would see a benefit to their golf game
>from understanding the "true facts" of the swing, even if these facts
>were indeed contained in some magic book.

I disagree here.  The golf swing contains many illusions, and when the
golfer understands the facts the illusions they no longer mislead him and
can be used to his advantage.  One of the biggest illusions of the golf
swing is the turning over of the hands through impact.  As in a post I just
made, the Turbo Swing demonstrates this is not the case.  Does this "true
fact" help the golfer, yes, probably over half of them.  Only those who
can't understand the facts are those who can't apply them.  Remember it is
easier to comply with physics than defy them.  If understanding the "true
facts" won't benefit someones game do you think understanding the "wrong
facts" will not have an effect on someones game?

Quote:
>And fewer than one in ten thousand would benefit from any conscious
>thought about F=MA or angular momentum or any other technology when
>they're actually trying to hit the ball.

Agreed.  The player doesn't need to think of these things, only the
instructor.

Quote:
>In my experience, instructors who are "licensed" dispensors of true
>wisdom according to some guru are not particularly helpful to the
>majority of their students. I guess if you want to be a "Brent's Golf
>Official Certified Instructor" or whatever, you just have to expect to
>send 9 out of every ten students home unsatisfied because they
>prove unworthy of the one true golf swing you are selling. Then you
>just content yourself with the 1/10 of your students for whom that
>particular system seems to work (at least for a while).

From an instructors point of view let me tell you this.  Not everyone who
comes to you has the ability to hit a golf ball.  If 10 students come to
you 9 will try to hit the ball in their usuall manner, NO MATTER WHAT YOU
SHOW THEM.  They will not change because they are afraid to go through a
period of missing the ball. Only 1 out of 10 will do what you tell him and
he will be the one to stand out. A GOOD instructor will not try to sell a  
certain method, he will insert or correct components that need fixing or
correction.   Those instructors who sell or teach one method (usually known
as method teachers) are not very knowledgeable because they only know that
one method.  The 2 most important aspects to improving from lessons is
confidence in the instructor and communication.  Remember, complexity is
more workable than mystery is.

Quote:
>To me, when hearing about or talking to a golf teacher (or any kind
>of teacher) any kind of "true believer" talk is an immediate Get Out
>Of Here Quick flag. My teacher, who I believe is excellent, seems to
>have at least two if not three ways to approaching any lesson. In the
>vast majority of cases, the suggestion he makes first is helpful, but
>if not he is always ready to back off and use other words or another
>drill to make the same point. I'll bet he very rarely has a student who
>tries him for a few lessons, loses faith, and then has to start from
>scratch (no pun intended) with someone else. Yet this seems to be a
>common pattern for many of the dogmatic teacher out there.

I understand this.  It is hard being an instructor, one of the hardest
things I ever did (this is why I no longer teach and do research). But a
good instructor should be able to convey the thought or principle in
several different ways.  This seperates the good instructor from the bad
instructor.  Harvey Penick was know as a good instructor because as he put
it, "he used simple words".

Quote:
>I think anyone who claims to have made a fundamental discovery
>concerning the golf swing that supercedes all previous knowledge is
>exhibiting a total lack of perspective at best and is amazingly
>arrogant at worst. The biggest lack of perspective is the way many of
>these gurus confuse cause and effect.

The golf swing is cause, the ball flight is effect.  This is why the golfer
needs to know how to apply the cause to get the desired effect.

******************************************
*                David Laville                *
*  Golf Research and Development  *
******************************************

 
 
 

"Golfing Machine", "Natural Golf(s)", physics, etc.

Post by David Lavil » Tue, 09 Jan 1996 04:00:00

Quote:
>Physics as applied to everyday things like the golf swing, flight of
>the golf ball and so forth are fascinating. However, I don't believe
>that one person in a hundred would see a benefit to their golf game
>from understanding the "true facts" of the swing, even if these facts
>were indeed contained in some magic book.

I disagree here.  The golf swing contains many illusions, and when the
golfer understands the facts the illusions they no longer mislead him and
can be used to his advantage.  One of the biggest illusions of the golf
swing is the turning over of the hands through impact.  As in a post I just
made, the Turbo Swing demonstrates this is not the case.  Does this "true
fact" help the golfer, yes, probably over half of them.  Only those who
can't understand the facts are those who can't apply them.  Remember it is
easier to comply with physics than defy them.  If understanding the "true
facts" won't benefit someones game do you think understanding the "wrong
facts" will not have an effect on someones game?

Quote:
>And fewer than one in ten thousand would benefit from any conscious
>thought about F=MA or angular momentum or any other technology when
>they're actually trying to hit the ball.

Agreed.  The player doesn't need to think of these things, only the
instructor.

Quote:
>In my experience, instructors who are "licensed" dispensors of true
>wisdom according to some guru are not particularly helpful to the
>majority of their students. I guess if you want to be a "Brent's Golf
>Official Certified Instructor" or whatever, you just have to expect to
>send 9 out of every ten students home unsatisfied because they
>prove unworthy of the one true golf swing you are selling. Then you
>just content yourself with the 1/10 of your students for whom that
>particular system seems to work (at least for a while).

From an instructors point of view let me tell you this.  Not everyone who
comes to you has the ability to hit a golf ball.  If 10 students come to
you 9 will try to hit the ball in their usuall manner, NO MATTER WHAT YOU
SHOW THEM.  They will not change because they are afraid to go through a
period of missing the ball. Only 1 out of 10 will do what you tell him and
he will be the one to stand out. A GOOD instructor will not try to sell a  
certain method, he will insert or correct components that need fixing or
correction.   Those instructors who sell or teach one method (usually known
as method teachers) are not very knowledgeable because they only know that
one method.  The 2 most important aspects to improving from lessons is
confidence in the instructor and communication.  Remember, complexity is
more workable than mystery is.

Quote:
>To me, when hearing about or talking to a golf teacher (or any kind
>of teacher) any kind of "true believer" talk is an immediate Get Out
>Of Here Quick flag. My teacher, who I believe is excellent, seems to
>have at least two if not three ways to approaching any lesson. In the
>vast majority of cases, the suggestion he makes first is helpful, but
>if not he is always ready to back off and use other words or another
>drill to make the same point. I'll bet he very rarely has a student who
>tries him for a few lessons, loses faith, and then has to start from
>scratch (no pun intended) with someone else. Yet this seems to be a
>common pattern for many of the dogmatic teacher out there.

I understand this.  It is hard being an instructor, one of the hardest
things I ever did (this is why I no longer teach and do research). But a
good instructor should be able to convey the thought or principle in
several different ways.  This seperates the good instructor from the bad
instructor.  Harvey Penick was know as a good instructor because as he put
it, "he used simple words".

Quote:
>I think anyone who claims to have made a fundamental discovery
>concerning the golf swing that supercedes all previous knowledge is
>exhibiting a total lack of perspective at best and is amazingly
>arrogant at worst. The biggest lack of perspective is the way many of
>these gurus confuse cause and effect.

The golf swing is cause, the ball flight is effect.  This is why the golfer
needs to know how to apply the cause to get the desired effect.

******************************************
*                David Laville                *
*  Golf Research and Development  *
******************************************

 
 
 

"Golfing Machine", "Natural Golf(s)", physics, etc.

Post by hu.. » Tue, 09 Jan 1996 04:00:00

Physics as applied to everyday things like the golf swing, flight of
the golf ball and so forth are fascinating. However, I don't believe
that one person in a hundred would see a benefit to their golf game
from understanding the "true facts" of the swing, even if these facts
were indeed contained in some magic book. And fewer than one in
ten thousand would benefit from any conscious thought about F=MA
or angular momentum or any other technology when they're actually
trying to hit the ball.

In my experience, instructors who are "licensed" dispensors of true
wisdom according to some guru are not particularly helpful to the
majority of their students. I guess if you want to be a "Brent's Golf
Official Certified Instructor" or whatever, you just have to expect to
send 9 out of every ten students home unsatisfied because they
prove unworthy of the one true golf swing you are selling. Then you
just content yourself with the 1/10 of your students for whom that
particular system seems to work (at least for a while).

To me, when hearing about or talking to a golf teacher (or any kind
of teacher) any kind of "true believer" talk is an immediate Get Out
Of Here Quick flag. My teacher, who I believe is excellent, seems to
have at least two if not three ways to approaching any lesson. In the
vast majority of cases, the suggestion he makes first is helpful, but
if not he is always ready to back off and use other words or another
drill to make the same point. I'll bet he very rarely has a student who
tries him for a few lessons, loses faith, and then has to start from
scratch (no pun intended) with someone else. Yet this seems to be a
common pattern for many of the dogmatic teacher out there.

I think anyone who claims to have made a fundamental discovery
concerning the golf swing that supercedes all previous knowledge is
exhibiting a total lack of perspective at best and is amazingly
arrogant at worst. The biggest lack of perspective is the way many of
these gurus confuse cause and effect. Just because you see a good
player's swing do some subtle thing in slow motion does not mean
they were trying consciously to make that little detail work just that
way. In all likelihood they were thinking something very simple and
the details just happened as a complex effect of a very simple cause.

Whew. Glad to have that off my chest. Now back to your regularly
scheduled religious war...

-------------
Brent Hutto