Is technical instruction a hinderence?

[rksquire]

For me, I appreciate the technical information - lessons, technology, numbers, data, etc.

I provide a bit of assistance to some football / rugby clubs and I'm aware these are often too technical but that is in my nature; I seen an interview a good while back with an American coach who answered a question from a kid about what was more important - attitude or technique. The answer was attitude, as technique can be taught.

Golf is such a weird sport, because the handicap system means anybody can compete against anybody across multiple age groups, but there is a physical limit to how much someone can improve even with the right attitude.... but the limitation is reflected in the handicap so you can remain competitive. That said, a good coach will be able to see the limitations but make technical recommendations as to how you can improve within these limits. Everyone is different, I want to know why I need to do this. I watched my son have a lesson (late teens, flexible, strong) - he didn't question a single thing, just did what he was told to do, no explanations provided. In my lesson, I get told what's wrong, how he thinks it can be improved, and how to achieve it in some detail - I need to understand it. Basically, depends on the person, but the technical advice has to be achievable / within the physical capability of the individual.

 

[Orikoru]

For me, I appreciate the technical information - lessons, technology, numbers, data, etc.

I provide a bit of assistance to some football / rugby clubs and I'm aware these are often too technical but that is in my nature; I seen an interview a good while back with an American coach who answered a question from a kid about what was more important - attitude or technique. The answer was attitude, as technique can be taught.

Golf is such a weird sport, because the handicap system means anybody can compete against anybody across multiple age groups, but there is a physical limit to how much someone can improve even with the right attitude.... but the limitation is reflected in the handicap so you can remain competitive. That said, a good coach will be able to see the limitations but make technical recommendations as to how you can improve within these limits. Everyone is different, I want to know why I need to do this. I watched my son have a lesson (late teens, flexible, strong) - he didn't question a single thing, just did what he was told to do, no explanations provided. In my lesson, I get told what's wrong, how he thinks it can be improved, and how to achieve it in some detail - I need to understand it. Basically, depends on the person, but the technical advice has to be achievable / within the physical capability of the individual.

I'm the same as you - not just in golf but anything in life. If I'm told to do something but I don't understand what the benefit is, then I won't commit to it or do it properly. If I know why I'm doing it, then all good.

 

[Golf is fun]

For me, I appreciate the technical information - lessons, technology, numbers, data, etc.

I provide a bit of assistance to some football / rugby clubs and I'm aware these are often too technical but that is in my nature; I seen an interview a good while back with an American coach who answered a question from a kid about what was more important - attitude or technique. The answer was attitude, as technique can be taught.

Golf is such a weird sport, because the handicap system means anybody can compete against anybody across multiple age groups, but there is a physical limit to how much someone can improve even with the right attitude.... but the limitation is reflected in the handicap so you can remain competitive. That said, a good coach will be able to see the limitations but make technical recommendations as to how you can improve within these limits. Everyone is different, I want to know why I need to do this. I watched my son have a lesson (late teens, flexible, strong) - he didn't question a single thing, just did what he was told to do, no explanations provided. In my lesson, I get told what's wrong, how he thinks it can be improved, and how to achieve it in some detail - I need to understand it. Basically, depends on the person, but the technical advice has to be achievable / within the physical capability of the individual.

Not to pick on you personally, but this goes back to the earlier comment I made about being coachable, your son just does what is asked, and this is the same pattern I've observed in most of the elite athletes I've encountered in my life.

We think we need to know stuff, but we don't really, there is no real reason we couldn't just go and do what the coach said.

 

[sunshine]

For context I also went and got the coaching certs in my old sport, and coached some complete beginners and an elite who won a commonwealth gold medal. However, my take on it is that it's my job as a coach to understand the technical nuances, and then design a task for the athlete so that they will apply these concepts without having to consciously think about them or know them.

There is a reason children learn motor skills the way they do, it's how nature designed us to learn and there is no reason this should change as an adult. There's a lot of really good research coming out in this space, my favourite is that it appears adults actually pick up motor skills faster than children, which "common knowledge" always told us didn't happen. The catch is that children retain these patterns better after sleep, whereas adults degrade.

Sometimes I think this has come about because the teaching has evolved to fit the technology, and we we all love technology, when it should be the other way round. If golf was taught on a course, rather than with a range and with a lot more focus on strategy and how to play (this technical aspect makes sense to teach) rather than on swing I reckon we'd have more ugly swings and lower handicaps.

Bit of a vague post. Have you signed an NDA which means you can't reveal your other sport?

 

[Springveldt]

Bit of a vague post. Have you signed an NDA which means you can't reveal your other sport?

It's weight lifting, he's said it in other posts.

 

[Golf is fun]

Bit of a vague post. Have you signed an NDA which means you can't reveal your other sport?

It's no secret, I've mentioned it before.

I'll admit I am vague, but that's just because whilst I'm not particularly famous if I posted some detail around what competitions I took part in and my results it would be really easy to look me up, and find out a lot of personal information about me. I don't want internet strangers doing that.
If I went to a meet with people from here I wouldn't turn up with those glasses with a fake nose and moustache.

 

[rksquire]

Not to pick on you personally, but this goes back to the earlier comment I made about being coachable, your son just does what is asked, and this is the same pattern I've observed in most of the elite athletes I've encountered in my life.

We think we need to know stuff, but we don't really, there is no real reason we couldn't just go and do what the coach said.

Yes and no; he's young enough where he can do anything that's asked of him athletically and his 'fun' metric is as fast and as far as possible; if he sticks at it, there'll be a levelling out and then it'll be adjustments to hone things, at which point it's different and I suspect of less interest.

Wayne Rooney at 17 - football was easy, Fergie put him on the pitch to do what he could do naturally. Then as he became more senior he became more difficult to coach, but he couldn't remain a 'boy' forever. Rory bounced around the course at the start of his career, all things managed by others - turn up, hit ball, have fun. Then he matured, wanted to know more on and off the course.

I'm not sure I could name any senior or elite athlete who doesn't know their stuff; I used to think Dustin Johnson was like that, but I've seen interviews where he clearly knows a lot more than he lets on - even he needs to understand the benefit. Again, it's individual though, and golf has so many moving parts it makes sense. For team sports and tactics, it's always been the case in my experience where the tactic has an explanation.

 

[Golf is fun]

Yes and no; he's young enough where he can do anything that's asked of him athletically and his 'fun' metric is as fast and as far as possible; if he sticks at it, there'll be a levelling out and then it'll be adjustments to hone things, at which point it's different and I suspect of less interest.

Wayne Rooney at 17 - football was easy, Fergie put him on the pitch to do what he could do naturally. Then as he became more senior he became more difficult to coach, but he couldn't remain a 'boy' forever. Rory bounced around the course at the start of his career, all things managed by others - turn up, hit ball, have fun. Then he matured, wanted to know more on and off the course.

I'm not sure I could name any senior or elite athlete who doesn't know their stuff; I used to think Dustin Johnson was like that, but I've seen interviews where he clearly knows a lot more than he lets on - even he needs to understand the benefit. Again, it's individual though, and golf has so many moving parts it makes sense. For team sports and tactics, it's always been the case in my experience where the tactic has an explanation.

I don't know anything about football, so can't comment on that.

Your Rory example coincides with him stopping winning majors, we can't say correlation is causation but it's interesting as an observation. Is there a possibility that although we think knowing more is better it actually reduces our performance?

Whether athletes know their stuff or not is hard to glean unless you know them personally as they all have a public persona which may or may not reflect reality, and they will say what gets the response they want, whether it is true or not.

 

[Orikoru]

I don't know anything about football, so can't comment on that.

Your Rory example coincides with him stopping winning majors, we can't say correlation is causation but it's interesting as an observation. Is there a possibility that although we think knowing more is better it actually reduces our performance?

Whether athletes know their stuff or not is hard to glean unless you know them personally as they all have a public persona which may or may not reflect reality, and they will say what gets the response they want, whether it is true or not.

But don't we have a polar opposite example in Faldo? Rebuilt his swing from a highly technical standpoint and then won six majors?

 

[Golf is fun]

But don't we have a polar opposite example in Faldo? Rebuilt his swing from a highly technical standpoint and then won six majors?

He did yes, but we know this was at the cost of athleticism and that he is a known short hitter relatively to his peers and his physical attributes. It's perhaps also interesting although anecdotal that many people believe Leadbetter has killed a lot of potential stars swings.

The answer we will never know in any given individuals case is would they have been better or worse without this. Would Faldo have won nothing without the change, or would he have won 10? Would Rory have lost his card without becoming more technical or would he have chased down Tiger? Would Tiger have been more or less successful without his big swing changes? Fun things to ponder, but impossible to truly answer.

 

[Oggie41]

We think we need to know stuff, but we don't really, there is no real reason we couldn't just go and do what the coach said.

That's fine if you want to be fully reliant on a coach. For anyone wanting to be self-sufficient after a set of lessons, it'd massively help to know why the coach suggested the changes they did.

 

[Golf is fun]

That's fine if you want to be fully reliant on a coach. For anyone wanting to be self-sufficient after a set of lessons, it'd massively help to know why the coach suggested the changes they did.

I don't believe knowing why something happens is necessary to being able to change it. One of the games my daughter plays with a coach is putting a stick in the ground on the target line and she has to start the ball one side of the stick and have it finish on the other. She knows nothing of swing mechanics, ball flight laws or anything else technical. She's just learnt that different types of motion move the ball more or less in different directions. Similar kind of game for high and low.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I had a conversation with my coach right at end of last year...I was bemoaning my lack of distance and inability to hit longer irons...I clearly needed more clubhead speed - we need to work on how I can get that...well that's what I told him.

His response was to ask what I wanted to achieve in golf looking ahead - not just in 2025. When I told him his first response was 'well you don't need more clubhead speed; you don't need a fuller back swing; indeed you don't need to make any changes to your swing...you have got what it takes - you can achieve your objective by simply being a bit more consistent'. And he added '...besides...you have just told me that you don't want to get to scratch - and you're 67 next year not 27'.

I have a lesson with him next week on short pitching/chipping - guess what...its an aspect of my game I need to be more consistent in - and it won't be very technical

I'll just add - he won't say what he said to me to all his customers - I get special treatment

 

[Golf is fun]

I had a conversation with my coach right at end of last year...I was bemoaning my lack of distance and inability to hit longer irons...I clearly needed more clubhead speed - we need to work on how I can get that...so I told him.

His response was to ask what I wanted to achieve in golf looking ahead - not just in 2025. When I told him his first response was 'well you don't need more clubhead speed; you don't need a fuller back swing; indeed you don't need to make any changes to your swing...you have got what it takes - you can achieve your objective by simply being a bit more consistent'. And he added '...besides...you have just told me that you don't want to get to scratch - and you're 67 next year not 27'.

I have a lesson with him next week on short pitching/chipping - guess what...its an aspect of my game I need to be more consistent in - and it won't be very technical

This really nicely illustrates 2 points:

1. What we think we need isn't necessarily what we actually need
2. Getting good can be very boring just working over and over until you own your swing and it's automatic, then when playing you're not thinking about how to move the club, just how you're getting the ball to the target. Unfortunately not many people have the patience to get to this point as they get bored and constantly tweak and tinker. Of course you need to be within certain acceptable windows of parameters, but you don't need a beautiful Adam Scott looking swing like many think, plenty of ugly swings can hit the parameters needed and score decently.

If you're planning to go pro and win majors, you may have to tighten things up a bit more, but the concept is the same, plus I don't think many people here or seeing the pro at the local driving range are on this journey.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

This really nicely illustrates 2 points:

1. What we think we need isn't necessarily what we actually need
2. Getting good can be very boring just working over and over until you own your swing and it's automatic, then when playing you're not thinking about how to move the club, just how you're getting the ball to the target. Unfortunately not many people have the patience to get to this point as they get bored and constantly tweak and tinker. Of course you need to be within certain acceptable windows of parameters, but you don't need a beautiful Adam Scott looking swing like many think, plenty of ugly swings can hit the parameters needed and score decently.

If you're planning to go pro and win majors, you may have to tighten things up a bit more, but the concept is the same, plus I don't think many people here or seeing the pro at the local driving range are on this journey.

Exactly…

 

[Oggie41]

I'm curious what other people think, is golf teaching overly technical? Did you come from another sport that was more or less technical (as a beginner and as you got better)?

I've played lots of other sports (football, squash etc.) and never got remotely technical with any of them.

I guess the difference with golf is the margin for error is so much smaller. Bad technique gets amplified compared to other sports, which is why I think people get more technical with golf. I definitely got too technical at times with golf in the past.

The Sweet Spot podcast talk a lot about making things more simple and just focusing on the big three (impact location, ground contact, and face angle) (the episode is here for anyone who's interested). In recent times that's what I've been doing and have had better results than when I was focusing on positions in the swing.

 

[Dunesman]

'well you don't need more clubhead speed; you don't need a fuller back swing; indeed you don't need to make any changes to your swing...you have got what it takes - you can achieve your objective by simply being a bit more consistent'.

From the lofty authoritative position of a long time high teens handicapper, I would take issue with your coach. His is talking cobblers.

There is no such thing as improving consistency per se. Inconsistency, is a bad swing that hits randomly good shots. You feel you are doing the same thing, but the technique weaknesses mean the actual performing of the swing, and path and dynamics of the club head, are very variable.

You cannot simply become more consistent, yet not change your swing. Change your swing - in the right way, as you say, your goal isnt to be scratch, or spend 3 years totally remodelling your swing - and your consistency will improve. The skill of a coach is knowing what to change for a given case. What will bring the best benefit for the amount of practice, time to change, athletic ability, and goals of the golfer.

Part of the illusion that keeps us thinking we can improve and be better golfers is this very factor. We have, and can hit, good shots much better than our bad shots, therefore, all we need to do is get consistent to have the good shot, all the time or more often. But this is false. The good shots are just luck, and the upper end of the swing you have. Only by changing the swing to move the whole spectrum of good to bad shot up, will you really improve.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

From the lofty authoritative position of a long time high teens handicapper, I would take issue with your coach. His is talking cobblers.

There is no such thing as improving consistency per se. Inconsistency, is a bad swing that his randomly good shots. Your feel you are doing the same thing, but the technique weaknesses mean the actual performing of the swing, and path and dynamics of the club head, are very variable.

You cannot simply become more consistent, yet not change your swing. Change your swing - in the right way, as you say, your goal isnt to be scratch, or spend 3 years totally remodelling your swing - and your consistency will improve. The skill of a coach is knowing what to change for a given case. What will bring the best benefit for the amount of practice, time to change, athletic ability, and goals of the golfer.

Part of the illusion that keeps us thinking we can improve and be better golfers is this very factor. We have, and can hit, good shots much better than our bad shots, therefore, all we need to do is get consistent to have the good shot, all the time or more often. But this is false. The good shots are just luck, and the upper end of the swing you have. Only by changing the swing to move the whole spectrum of good to bad shot up, will you really improve.

Interesting - I'll tell him that and see what he says

 

[Dunesman]

Interesting - I'll tell him that and see what he says

Yes, its worth exploring with him at least.

Interested to hear too how he thinks he could add consistency, without changing your swing.

 

[Backache]

I guess it depends what you mean by improving consistency, most of us hit good and bad shots,

I reckon I wouldn't find it too difficult to improve the consistency with which I hit bad shots.

It's the other way round which is a bit more taxing.