There's been any number of threads with one side saying just hit it, find it and hit it again. And then conversely there's been those that promote a more 'fixed' approach with angles of dangles etc. Occasionally, as both parties argue more and more rabidly, a gem of an idea surfaces only to be buried in the white noise of argument.
So which version is the right way forward??? OMG!! I can hear the stampede of hooves as the protaganists dash forward to declare their case.
I'll declare my version up front but... I started playing way back when kids weren't welcome on the course, or in the clubhouse in my 1st club, and you went out when no one was about and you taught yourself by trial and error, and I became a touchy feely player.
The mid/late 70's saw pro's becoming better at teaching, and teaching a method that suited an individual's physical and technical ability - ah, the good old days when pro and pupil were partners who worked together. Sadly then came the (robotic) Leadbetter years, or was it sadly? For Faldo, who in my honest opinion had a fantastic swing pre Leadbetter, doing a major rework worked. But for Sandy Lyle, who in my opinion had a better swing, who went down the manufactured route, it most definitely didn't... what a sad demise... well, that isn't conclusive...
More recent years has seen the professionals, and the PGA, realise that the 40 yr olds new to golf will not get his/her body into the same body positions as the Luke Donald's of this world. They returned to accepting the idea that they have to work with what they've got - a decent pro, new or old who has kept current with modern methods, will do the right thing by the pupil. It won't be an instant, fast food McDonalds, fix but a decent modern pro actually wants what you want.
So where does all that fit in with my touchy feely belief that golf can be easily self taught? I could name any number of top pro's who've made a fantastic living from golf - the quirky swings of the really old pro's who had to work with hickory shafts, thro' to Bobby Locke, Calvin Peete, Lee Trevino, Eamonn Darcy, Nick Price and Jim Furyk... but then there's the modern, manufactured, swings of a multitude of players who, equally, have made a great living from the game - is Tiger's modern, Foley, taught swing working...?
I've done the JO thing of standing on the practice ground, but not for 12 hrs, (more recently a range - modern cwap) with, relatively, new amatuers and suggested anything from S&T to 1 plane/2 plane. Pretty much whatever version works for you...
But basically, if your 4 beats my 5 you're doing it the right way. Whatever version you're using that scores well is right for you. *runs for the hills whilst putting on a tin hat*
Robots or... does it really matter?
So which version is the right way forward??? OMG!! I can hear the stampede of hooves as the protaganists dash forward to declare their case.
I'll declare my version up front but... I started playing way back when kids weren't welcome on the course, or in the clubhouse in my 1st club, and you went out when no one was about and you taught yourself by trial and error, and I became a touchy feely player.
The mid/late 70's saw pro's becoming better at teaching, and teaching a method that suited an individual's physical and technical ability - ah, the good old days when pro and pupil were partners who worked together. Sadly then came the (robotic) Leadbetter years, or was it sadly? For Faldo, who in my honest opinion had a fantastic swing pre Leadbetter, doing a major rework worked. But for Sandy Lyle, who in my opinion had a better swing, who went down the manufactured route, it most definitely didn't... what a sad demise... well, that isn't conclusive...
More recent years has seen the professionals, and the PGA, realise that the 40 yr olds new to golf will not get his/her body into the same body positions as the Luke Donald's of this world. They returned to accepting the idea that they have to work with what they've got - a decent pro, new or old who has kept current with modern methods, will do the right thing by the pupil. It won't be an instant, fast food McDonalds, fix but a decent modern pro actually wants what you want.
So where does all that fit in with my touchy feely belief that golf can be easily self taught? I could name any number of top pro's who've made a fantastic living from golf - the quirky swings of the really old pro's who had to work with hickory shafts, thro' to Bobby Locke, Calvin Peete, Lee Trevino, Eamonn Darcy, Nick Price and Jim Furyk... but then there's the modern, manufactured, swings of a multitude of players who, equally, have made a great living from the game - is Tiger's modern, Foley, taught swing working...?
I've done the JO thing of standing on the practice ground, but not for 12 hrs, (more recently a range - modern cwap) with, relatively, new amatuers and suggested anything from S&T to 1 plane/2 plane. Pretty much whatever version works for you...
But basically, if your 4 beats my 5 you're doing it the right way. Whatever version you're using that scores well is right for you. *runs for the hills whilst putting on a tin hat*
Robots or... does it really matter?
