golfrewind.com

It is 2010 and you have just received the new improved version of the perfect swing machine..The JOE BLOGGS S.M. (TM). Reading the instructions you see that it has a swing like an improved form of BEN HOGAN, but it cannot see and it has no sense of target. In other words it is your job to address the ball with it. It does have a swing range of from 0.1 yards to 300+ yards which is programmable and it will alter its posture for various clubs. It can play from a variety of lies (unfortunately the bunker model is not available yet).

YOu take it out to the course with you to have a game. (All your many friends are busy washing their clubs )

The question is: What do you take into consideration when setting JOE BSM(TM) up? What is not necessary to take into consideration?

I think the answers have important implications for our own game. One point I would like to make at this point is that JOE B would swing the same whether there was a ball there or not.

Anybody want to have a go?

swingezy: First, thanks for your many thought-provoking posts. I don't usually respond because I'm a poor student of the swing (as my 15-hdcp suggests), but I do enjoy reading your stuff.

OK, let's see. I guess I'd set up JOE B in accordance with my understanding of the fundamentals of a good address. For driver: arms hanging naturally from the shoulders, feet about shoulder-width apart, ball played off the heel of the forward foot. Ditto for 7-I, but feet closer together and ball played midway between the feet. Ditto for PW, but feet slightly closer together and ball played more off the back foot. For pretty much all shots (not bunker or greenside chip), feet parallel to the intended line of flight (the "railroad tracks" concept).

Then, assuming that JOE B will hit the straight shot you've talked about elsewhere, I'd identify the point from which I'd want to play the NEXT shot (e.g., where's the best place to come into the green from, or, if I'm going for the green, where's the best place to putt from?). Then I would program in the distance to that point, get JOE B's club for that distance (JOE shouldn't be restricted to my puny distances), set JOE's stance (if not pre-set), and aim him at that point. As needed, I'd take into consideration wind and ground contour, as these may affect the ball's flight and roll. Having utter confidence in the machine, I wouldn't play away from trouble as much as I normally do.

I'll start saving my money now to buy this thing!

it would be a handy tool
might even cut 3-4 shots off my game
lets sit back and wait for the enlightening punchline about how we are all already this machine but havent realised it yet
*
knowing what your capable of is a huge step towards reaching your potential , now to harness the force Luke

Thanks Jim. Sounds like great golf routine doesn't it. The point I want to make here is that JOE B never 'hits the ball'. Of course the newer models might make sight sensors available and capacity to put a different swing on the ball so that the rotators (arms/hands) work somewhat independently of the drive shaft (centre). This would require extra motors because at the moment, all Joe's drive is coming from the central shaft and the arms etc are independently hinged free flowing levers until they reach the limits of their capacity.

Of course a device like this already exists to test golf clubs (Iron Byron).

The other point (related to this) is that if JOE B has a practice swing with the way you have set him up, it would be no different from his actual swing would it?

So if we want to hit the ball where we aim it, we need to switch off the extra motors that we possess and rely on the central drive shaft for our swing don't you think. This usually happens in our practice swing but when we get up to the ball, the 'extra motors' usually kick in and then we think that it is our job to make these motors work more efficiently rather than simply switch them off and let the swing take care of the result.

This is easier said than done but only because of perceptual and psychological problems, not because of mechanical ones. Thus it is my contention that if we understand the sensations involved in the practice swing, emulating these when addressing the ball brings about a "JOE BLOGGS SWING" and a 'dead straight' shot!

Do you see this?

hmmmm.. sounds wierdly like this one:

http://www.golfingslide.com/slideclub.shtml

swingezy,

I have read and followed all your insights and ideas from the beginning. Most are interesting, some I agree with, and some I don't. My feeling is that you're putting way too much emphasis on what you refer to as "perceptual and psychological problems" for the average golfer to understand. Most of us have read about, watched, and/or been taught, what a good golf swing should look like. The problem is we're all different sizes, shapes, and abilities, so what works for one does not always work for another.

Golf is not a scientific exercise. It cannot be solved, or improved, by any specific formula. Throughout golf history, trial and error has taught us what works and what doesn't. We don't question the science of the mechanics, why should we? Most of us play the game for relaxation and the sheer enjoyment of hitting good shots and recovering from the not so good ones. Applying science to our game is just adding another variable we don't need.

Robotic golf may have worked for Iron Byron (retired several years ago BTW) but who among us would enjoy playing like that? Understanding what causes the ball to react a certain way is a good thing. As is trying to understand swing planes, swing paths, alignment, grip, ball position, etc. etc. However, having all that information going through your head as you stand over the ball is disastrous. Golf is a game of simple....take a stick and hit a ball into a hole. If more golfers thought of this instead of analyzing the whys and wherefores of their swings, they would probably improve quicker, and get more enjoyment from the game.

I can not, and would not, refute anything you've posted. Its very interesting, and provides insightful reading. It's just that I would never try to take any of it to the first tee with me. Golf, as 99.9% of us play it, is a recreational sport, played for relaxation and friendly competition. I'll leave the science of the game to those who play this game for a living....and to those that teach science.

Please don't interpret my opinions as being derogatory to your teachings or ideas. I do enjoy reading them. I just think simple is better.

I am with leaguegolf. Swingezy's understanding of the mechanics of the golf swing is as good as most PGA Teaching professionals. I remember when I was a new teacher and I would try to give the student EVERYTHING I knew about the golf swing. Needless to say, after a few lessons that went pretty bad, I figured it out...the student doesn't care about all of the swing theory and preferences that we have all studied when becoming instructors. Now I rarely use "golf-speak" in lessons but I do give the information critical to achieving that student's goals and to allow that student to know what to do when things go sideways. The other thing I rely on heavily so students don't think about all of the mechanical things is very simple drills utilizing tees so they can do them at home or the range WITHOUT any specialized training aids.

What the "perceptual and psychological" theory that keeps getting mentioned is in simple terms is what league mentioned: "Golf is a game of simple....take a stick and hit a ball into a hole. If more golfers thought of this instead of analyzing the whys and wherefores of their swings, they would probably improve quicker, and get more enjoyment from the game." This concept is why junior golfers get WORSE on the putting green as they get older and get "coaching." You tell the 4-6 year old to roll the ball in the hole and that child, once he/she gets a feel for it will make so many 20-30 footers, it is sickening.

I, like, league and many others agree with a majority of what swingezy has to say and some I don't but as a golf professional, I know that different instructors have different preferences (i.e. McLean's emphasis on driving the knees and Leadbetter's empasis on connectivity in the upper body) so I respect your views even when I don't necessarily agree with them. After giving the number of lessons I have given, I can state one thing that is a fact: not every player has the ability to hit a consistent straight shot due to various PHYSICAL limitations.

Regardless, SWINGEZY, keep the posts coming because that is how we learn from each other.

Hi guys

Thanks for the feedback. it is very enlightening. I do not disagree at all with the KISS formula, in fact that is what I am trying to achieve.

I guess what I needed to learn though was that verbal descriptions of something are a very poor way to communicate with the average golfer or even the pro.

I am not offering a 'swing formula' at all, which is what I believe many professional teachers do, and if golf was 'take a stick and hit the ball into the hole' then we could all be playing pretty well pretty quick don't you feel. I feel that the fundamental problem here is the idea that golf is about hitting the ball rather than swinging to a target.

I agree that all body types and swings are different, but the basic fundamentals of all good swings are the same. I believe it is easy to teach someone to 'find their own swing' and fit the fundamentals into that, not teach the mechanics of the fundamentals and have someone attempt to hit a ball like that. Tht in my opinion is what causes problems in the first place.

As to the perceptual/psychological problems, they ARE the problems. The mechanics of the game are fairly simple (without the ball). They can be taught fairly easily to any reasonably atheletic person (without the ball). I have found that if I maintain the feel orientation of the swing without the ball when I actually swing at the ball, the shot is 'perfect' but one must overcome the perceptual problems and psych problems to do this. This is not that difficult if one does not have to overcome ingrained habit of twenty years, which I had to. The fact that most golfers do not even realise that they are the victims of perceptual and psychological problems prevents golfers from doing anything about them in the first place. I have always been under the impression that a problem identified is half solved.

When I go to a pro, he is not interested in perceptual/psych problems usually, he wants to look at my mechanics in relation to the ball and work on those. But my mechanics are fine and are not the real problem. Once I am oriented correctly to the target and swing freely as in the p.s., the ball goes exactly where it is intended. But the perception of the solid ball and the 'tension' of trying to do something are the real problems in golf and often these simply get reinforced in golf lessons that relate the golfer to the ball too early in the understanding of the swing.

This approach is very hard to communicate to others in writing, but can be conveyed easily in one or two hands-on lessons.

Does anyone see my pov? I am not interested in mechanical golf, it was just an analogy to say what a swing to a target is like rather than a 'hit' at a ball.

I understand where you are coming from as my lessons are mainly about getting the player to swing and the ball IS secondary. I usually use the following explanation as a way to further "loosen up" a new student: "We NEVER hit a golf ball, we simply swing to a target and let the ball get in the way. The only reason we have a ball in golf is to settle the arguments that would break out over who has the best swing." This is usually AFTER having the student swinging at tees in the ground until he/she is making smooth swings and clipping the tees out of the ground. After the above explanation, I reset the tee drill with 3 tees and on the 3rd tee, I place a ball. I instruct the student to continue through those three tees with the same objectives as before...just clip the tee out of the ground. This is assuming a first time or very beginning golfer, obviously I wouldn't use this for an advanced player but a blindfold, that is another story.

Exactly JC. We are on exactly the same page with this. I really like this '3 tee exercise' as it generates the swing feel first, doesn't it?

To me there are a number of stages the beginner needs to go through and the introduction of the ball into the swing is one of them ..at the appropriate time. An experiment conducted with this showed that the level of perceived balance/relaxation in the person decreased from a rating of 9/10 with swinging over an object (e.g. tee) to 4/10 when a ball was introduced only hitting into a net. (these were self ratings given by the golfers concerned). It took about 20 trials before the rating of 'balance/relaxation' climbed up close to the rating without the ball. And this occurred each time except it took fewer and fewer trials before relaxation occurred the same as the free swing. Eventually the player was able to achieve a free relaxed swing each time with the ball.

The next level of tension was on the range without worrying about the outcme. the next was to a target.....etc.

To me, this is a sensible way to approach the teaching of the game, and seems one you agree with.

The perceptual problem of the 'dual focus' is at least one of the main causes of problems in golf and needs to be understood up front. If the original target orientation of the swing can be maintained even with the introduction of the ball, one of the major difficulties in improving is eliminated don't you think?

Of course, it is the job of the golf course architect to introduce other perceptual distractors and unless the golfer becomes aware of these too, they will continually fall into the traps that the designer has laid for them.
And then wonder why they cannot take their 'range game' to the course.

And this does not even touch on the psychological factors that influence tension and relaxation.

Do you address any of this in your instruction at some point?

I have major agreement with your approach to the game, but I do not believe the majority of golf instructors pay anything but lip service to the 'real' factors that cause the game to be a nightmare for some players.

Thanks for your continued encouragement and also your feedback. I am only interested in seeing golf taught well. And I envy you your job, still