Talent versus Practice

[BrianW]

Re: Talent versus Practice

I am still not convinced by this. I see so many golfers with unorthodox swings that sometimes work, although due to the number of compensations that have to be made to get the club face square it all breaks down so easily.

As Hogan suggested, to become a better golfer with a chance to break 80 you need a sound repeatable swing. OK, now and then someone emerges who can pull a quirky swing together and become great, but that's not the stuff for the average guy or gal who plays once or twice a week and practices for an hour or two. "Practice the wrong things and you get better at doing them wrong"

[Martin Levac]

Re: Talent versus Practice

Perfect practice makes perfect, sid.

But I know what you're getting at. It's like any athletic movement that's 'homemade', be it a golf swing, a basketball shot, or a baseball swing. If you do it enough times your own way, eventually you'll figure out how to do it effectively. That's why these 'hacks' have ugly swings that perform - they've been swinging ugly for so long, they've grooved it, and know how it works.

I must disagree because it doesn't make sense.

"Perfect practice makes perfect." Doesn't make sense.

We practice to achieve perfection. If we started with perfection, there would be no need for practice and that is not what we start with anyway.

Practice comes first, perfection comes second: Practice makes perfect.

Perhaps you want to emphasize some technique or other? It doesn't change the fact that one doesn't start with perfection, but achieves it through practice. Anyway, there's nothing more perfect in golf than the ball in the hole. So, until one achieves this result with every stroke, one is not perfect regardless of what one looks like when he does that.

Conversely, one is indeed perfect if one achieves this result with each stroke regardless of what he looks like as he does it.

It's not about compensations or specific techniques, it's not about "grooving it and he knows how it works", it's not about innate ability, it's about practice and lots of it. The most beautiful swing is the one that sends the ball to the target, any other swing is ugly.

Perhaps you want to specify some goal or other? The activity we practice is its own goal, there is no further need to define it. "I practice playing golf." Observe the activity, determine the skills required, practice that and nothing else. Through practice of those activities, one becomes good at doing them.

[bill reed]

Re: Talent versus Practice

hi
top piano playes pratice every day to keep at there top performance, thay can be close to prefect but have to pratice to maintain that skill, golfers are the same, you know if you dont play for a few weeks do to weather then your game is rusty.
bill

[Martin Levac]

Re: Talent versus Practice

I am still not convinced by this. I see so many golfers with unorthodox swings that sometimes work, although due to the number of compensations that have to be made to get the club face square it all breaks down so easily.

As Hogan suggested, to become a better golfer with a chance to break 80 you need a sound repeatable swing. OK, now and then someone emerges who can pull a quirky swing together and become great, but that's not the stuff for the average guy or gal who plays once or twice a week and practices for an hour or two. "Practice the wrong things and you get better at doing them wrong"

"Practice the wrong things and you get better at doing them wrong"

So, what is the wrong thing? Swinging the club <this> way is the wrong thing? Swinging the club <that> way is the wrong thing?

Not if <this> and <that> way will produce the intended result. That's how I define right and wrong, through the result.

Do <whatever> to produce <intended goal>.

In the affirmation above, <whatever> can't be wrong if it produces <intended goal>. Regardless of what <whatever> looks like to anybody.

Flipping the wrists is wrong? Not if it produces the intended result. Losing spine angle is wrong? Not if it produces the intended result. Reverse pivot is wrong? Not if it produces the intended result. Lifting the left heel is wrong? Not if it produces the intended result. Keeping the weight on the back foot is wrong? Not if it produces the intended result.

No technique is wrong if it produces the intended result.

Which brings me exactly to where most people want to be: Sending a ball very far.

That above is the wrong thing to practice. So what's the right thing to practice then?

Sending a ball very close. That's the right thing to practice. Nothing else makes sense. Here's the exercise again just so you can all understand how right and wrong close and far are. What if the only thing you could do was send a ball 200 yards but always straight to your target, what score would you be making on any course of your choice? Count scores like so:

Less than 200 yards: 2 strokes
Between 200 and 400 yards: 3 strokes
More than 400 yards: 4 strokes

Sound repeatable swing? No problem: Practice. It's not through specific technique that a swing becomes repeatable, it's through extensive practice. Therefore, Hogan should have suggested instead "In order to break 80, one must practice."

Perhaps instead of quirky, the term personal would be best to describe one's own method. It may look quirky to you but for the person playing, it's completely natural. So it would be to others for you as well.

Practice is all the average guy has available to him. Since he's average, he's not particularly bright or particularly athletic so in order for the average guy to become any good, all he's left with is practice. Lots of it. No techno gimmick or magic trick, just plain old practice. And if he doesn't practice, then he must satisfy himself with mediocrity because there's no shortcut. Or buy a golf game in a box like he's doing right now, I think TaylorMade et al really like that.

Talent versus practice. Technique versus practice. Talent versus technique. Hm, all I know is that regardless of talent, regardless of technique, one becomes good at doing anything through practice.

[BrianW]

Re: Talent versus Practice

Martin,

So! Here are two systems to become a proficient striker of the ball:

System 1

Put a golf club in Mr Average's hand, countless thousands of range balls, let them get on with it? Just one piece of advice "Hit the ball with this and get it into that hole over there" I will come back later when you are perfect.

System 2:

Send Mr average to a reputable golf coach for a set a lessons that introduce him to the basic fundamentals of the golf swing. As he is learning have him practice the things he has been taught: Grip, stance, swing mechanics, balance etc. When he understands what to do and becomes reasonably proficient, send him on his way to play golf and encourage him to keep practicing the RIGHT things and avoid the WRONG things.

I know which I prefer.

Look at the best in class, these tour players, do they slice the ball, come over the top? With very small exceptions they conform to a set of kinematic movements that have been proven over many decades to produce the best results. They practice these movements over and over and over and by a system of iteration move as close to perfection as their abilities and talents will allow.

Newton saw further by sitting on the shoulders of Giants, I have moved closer to that elusive perfection in golf by adopting the proven methods of Hogan, King, Pelz etc who have helped to relieve me from the frustrations of trial and error learning.

But, if you believe that any practice makes perfect and that works for you, great!

[SevenBall]

Re: Talent versus Practice

Man this has been going for ages, huge thread.. I think the first thing to do is to define where talent is and I think most of us are thinking it is up near our absolute potential.. IE, no matter how much I practice, I wouldn't be near the player/quality of say Hogan because he had much more natural talent than me..

I think the higher handicap players are coming from a point a view that talented people are down around scratch.. I disagree with that, I think pretty much any able bodied person (with no physical or mental disabilities) can get down around there.. I mean geese, I can go out and have a damn UGLY round and still put together a 3 or 4 over.. (I've also had the odd round where I hit everything beautifully and got a 12 over - stupid game haha)

But think about the difference talent has with Tiger.. The average tour pro may average 1.77 putts per hole and Tiger may average 1.50.. The difference talent has is very small.. Its that last 100th of a second in an olympic race to win the gold. IMO, hard work is the key to get where you want to get.. But, as said, you have practice the right things..

I disagree with Martin on one thing, that is about learning the (EDIT: A proven swing that is conducive to good results) correct swing.. Just focusing on sending ball to target with your home made swing might get it there, if you have grooved it and you are good, 8 times out of 10.. But, for those of us who say we have a good day when we are even or have gone under, you need to send it there 19 times out of 20.. A good swing maximises your chances of a good result..

Just my 2 cents..

[Neil18]

Re: Talent versus Practice

Sevenball,

I have never qualified geese as able bodied people!

[BrianW]

Re: Talent versus Practice

Sevenball,

I have never qualified geese as able bodied people!

They can be when they have been to the Quack.

[Neil18]

Re: Talent versus Practice

Buddabing.

[SevenBall]

Re: Talent versus Practice



Funny fella's.. Really, really funny..

[Martin Levac]

Re: Talent versus Practice

BrianW, let's put it in context.

System 1: Ben Hogan method used by Ben Hogan.

System 2: Ben Hogan method used by anybody else.

Who taught Hogan the "Hogan method"? The answer is easy, it's Hogan himself. How did he make this method effective? The answer is easy again, through extensive practice. If I only look at the intended success of either method, I'll take the real Hogan method, System 1. Afterall, it worked for him, why not for me? I just have to put in my name twice like so: The Martin Levac method used by Martin Levac.

Now that I put it in perspective, I think that System 1 is much more successful than System 2. Look at Hogan and the results he produced. What about Sam Snead, what's wrong with his method?

When I'm told that I have a beautiful swing (or any other comment on my method and how it looks), I always reply that it isn't the swing, it's the result, then I point at my ball in the bushes or on the green, whichever is true at the time. Then they go on with "Oh but if you start with a nice swing, it'll help you with the result", to which I reply that it isn't the technique, it's the practice.

No technique is any good unless one practices it extensively.
Any technique is no good unless one practices it extensively.

There are few specific techniques that I can point at and say this will guarantee the intended result. In fact the only specific techniques I know of that guarantee the intended results are all directly related to striking the ball, not to swinging the club.

Repeatable comes from the word repeat. So, for a swing to become repeatable, it must have been repeated many times before or it must be repeated many times after. There is no shortcut. All that regardless of the specific technique used to swing the club.

Perhaps there are specific techniques that make it easier to swing the club this way or that way but they are few and general in nature, not specific. For example, keeping the head still or swinging the club in the same plane to and fro or sending a ball to a target using a club.

Perhaps there are specific techniques that make it harder to produce the intended results? I don't think so, all technique will produce the intended result, it's just a matter of selecting the intended result and applying the appropriate technique to produce it.

Let's look at the appropriate technique to produce the intended result. How about over-the-top. We all know that it produces a slice. Therefore, if I want to produce a slice, I'll go over-the-top. If I don't want to produce a slice, I won't. It's pretty simple to me.

But we're not supposed to use the arms. Ah that's where the trouble comes in. Using the arms or not isn't what the purpose of the golf swing is. In fact there is not one specific technique that represents the purpose of the golf swing except sending a ball to a target using a club.

When I send a ball to a target, I'm doing everything right and nothing wrong. No matter if I go OTT or use the arms or lift the left heel or leave the clubface open. Look, I'm sending the ball to the target.

With enough practice, I could be swinging the club like a monkey while producing the intended results all the time. That would make me a very rich monkey-looking man indeed.

Let's look at Tiger one more time. No, let's look at Tiger lookalikes one more time. How do they fare with that Tiger-looking swing? They focus so much on looking like Tiger, they forget about sending the ball to the target using that club they're swinging like Tiger does.

What about Furyk? "The reason his swing works is because he gets to the fundamental positions even though he gets there differently." Do you mean proper contact with the ball? I think that's what you mean, all the pictures I've been shown with this argument are all the same: Impact. That's pretty fundamental to me. But that's the only truly fundamental aspect of the golf swing, otherwise it isn't a golf swing at all.

How about two different types of systems.

System 1: Focus on transmission of power over everything else and practice that extensively.

System 2: Focus on production of power over everything else and practice that extensively. No wait, don't practice it, just take more courses because you're not good enough. Forget about practice, it doesn't work anyway. In fact, you must start with perfect then practice that then get perfect as you do. That's too hard for the average joe. Go buy a game in a box at GolfTown, I promise you that's what they sell. No wait, don't practice that, practice makes permanent, whatever you're practicing, you won't be able to unlearn so don't practice it.

I know which system works for the player and which system works for everybody else except the player. Practice works, it's been proven time after time for thousands of years and I don't need to believe it.

[Scragger63]

Re: Talent versus Practice

Mental Note to Self: Stop practising hooking the ball into the trees...

[Jeff Mann]

Re: Talent versus Practice

I think that Martin's entire argument is without merit.

He states-: "Flipping the wrists is wrong? Not if it produces the intended result. Losing spine angle is wrong? Not if it produces the intended result. Reverse pivot is wrong? Not if it produces the intended result. Lifting the left heel is wrong? Not if it produces the intended result. Keeping the weight on the back foot is wrong? Not if it produces the intended result."

How does one know if a particular swing change results in an intended result? That "causal connection" relationship would only be possible if all things remained the same except for one swing change. Most golfers are not that good that they can keep everything the same except for one swing change. That's why a good ball flight result on day 1 doesn't imply that a swing change is good. Even if they could keep everything the same for a few hours at a golf practice facility, it may be a compensatory change that only works on day 1, and doesn't work on day 2 (or any day thereafter). Secondly, most golfers don't really know what they are doing with their body in space.This is a well known fact to golf instructors, and that's why most PGA tour players utilise personal golf instructors. Why would Tiger Woods seek advice from Hank Haney if he didn't value an alternative (knowledgeable outsider's) viewpoint?

It is also an interesting fact that very few PGA tour players have idiosyncratic swings (eg. Jim Furyk), which they discovered works for them by personal experience. Most PGA tour players have similar looking swings (eg. Tiger Woods, Vijah Singh, Adam Scott, Stuart Appleby, Aaron Baddeley, Trevor Immelman, Nick Faldo, Ernie Els, Justin Rose, and endless more) - because they follow the same golf fundamentals. None of those players breaks fundamental rules eg. reverse pivoting, flipping the wrists.

I have taught many beginner golfers and I am always amazed to discover that most of them have no idea what each part of their body is doing in space eg. right elbow movement during the downswing, or left wrist at impact. I believe that most golfers will benefit by some golf instructional material that allows them to understand how they should move their bodies in space.

Jeff.

[Neil18]

Re: Talent versus Practice

I'm thoroughly enjoying reading this debate. I can't really add much to it because I can see both sides and am undecided. I think both sides have some merit. I can see Martins arguments. I don't think that they have no merit at all. Likewise, guidance in the most efficient and repeatable technique is somewhat necessary in this point.

I would say, however, that the comment stating that there are less idiosyncratic swings nowadays may not be totally true. I reckon if I went to a PGA event, I could tell who's swinging a club from 250 yards away by how they swing it. The swings are different enough today as they were. But are there definately less wacky ones (Mr Furyk)? Trevino looked a bit wacky. So did Player when he was young. But the rest all have setups and movements we can all identify with. The players quoted by Jeff? You could tell the difference from a distance, and that means there's idiosyncracies (apart from Tiger and Scott, but then one's black and one's white, so you could tell! ).

Els' rhythm and high-handed backswing, Vijay's "floppy-looking lollop" into the ball with his old fashioned reverse K setup, Appleby's rotary swing, Immelman's huge hip turn, Tigers immense speed (swing and hips). Same fundamentals? Yes. Same as 40 years ago. Different movements around those fundamentals? All of them. Always has been, always will be IMO.

[Martin Levac]

Re: Talent versus Practice

Jeff Mann, there is nothing to be amazed at. The reason is simple: That's not how we learn how a thing is done.

I don't need to know how to move my body in order to do something. All I need to know is how to do it, my motor cortex takes care of moving my body for me.

As it applies to golf. I don't need to know how to move my body. All I need to know is how to move the club.

As it applies to any other activity. I don't need to know how to move my body. All I need to know is how to move the hammer, the bow, the axe, the hockey stick, the fork, the <insert name of tool here>.

Tiger Woods sought advice from others, namely Butch Harmon. Nobody else but Tiger himself does what Tiger himself does. And he certainly did not achieve what he did without practice. The specific technique? Who cares, it's Tiger Woods, he can do whatever he wants and he will still win.

It's the other way around. Most PGA tour players have unconventional swings. If you prefer, they all have very personal swings.

What is a golf fundamental? Please use the dictionary definition of fundamental so we all know what you're saying.

Let me give you a couple of examples so you know what is truly fundamental and what is not. The grip. It is fundamental that we hold the grip with our hands. It is not fundamental that we use a specific method to hold the club, as an example, there are three popular methods; the interlock, the overlap and the baseball grip. All of which are not fundamental in themselves, rather they are personal: We choose to grip the club this way or that way.

Another example. Ball position. The only fundamental aspect of ball position is that it must be at rest on the ground or on a tee, in front of the player to be played sideways according to the rules. Every other aspect of ball position is a matter of personal choice.

Yet another example of what's fundamental and what's not. Swing plane. Some swing the club on a very flat plane, others on a very upright plane. Some take the club back flat but bring it down upright. Others do the opposite yet others swing the club back and forth on the same plane. The only thing fundamental about swinging a club is that we must swing it back and forth, to and fro, up and down. Everything else about swinging the club is a matter of personal choice.

The last example of fundamental. Contact between the club and the ball. After having looked at everything related to the golf swing, the only thing that remains that can't be a matter of personal choice is contact between the clubhead and the ball. That is dictated by the laws of the universe as we have observed countless times in the past. Good contact allows one to be accurate while bad contact doesn't. That is fundamental and we can't choose to make it otherwise.

Which brings me back to my argument. Whatever technique one uses, as long as he produces proper contact, it can't be wrong. No matter how ugly or quirky or uncoventional he looks, it can't be wrong. Look, the ball goes straight and to the target, that can't be wrong ever.

Compensating? The only compensation I see is in the appearance. I can't go straight, I might as well look good.

Why is it that only in golf do we get confused about technique? How do we kick a ball? Please develop a technique that will be taught in schools all over so that we can all make kick changes every now and again when we don't like the way we kick the ball. Better yet, a method to teach how to swing a hammer and all kinds of different names for the different techniques used to swing said hammer. Then we'll just make changes to our swings as we go along if it doesn't look good.

See how it becomes ridiculous when we talk about anything else but golf? "Making swing changes to the way we swing the hammer". LOL

If my arguments have no merit, then Ben Hogan certainly had no merit either. He learned on his own the method that we teach today, the method where you get all your "fundamentals" from. Instead of using the term fundamental, it would be more appropriate to use the term "<name>'s method" like so "Hogan's method". I'm thinking of Vardon and the grip he popularised. Like I wrote, it isn't fundamental to grip the club the Vardon way, it's a personal preference. So, it isn't fundamental to swing the club the Hogan way, it's a personal preference.

There is no rule to the method one must use except as explicitly stated in the rules. Everything else is up to the player. He could swing like a monkey and still produce extraordinary results, repeatable results. If he only practiced it extensively.

Indiosyncratic. It certainly looks like a big word but all it means is: A characteristic, habit, mannerism, or the like, that is peculiar to an individual. In other words, it's personal.

Jim Furyk did not discover that his swing worked. He did not get his swing from a box of cereal. That's the wrong way to look at it. We discovered that his swing worked despite, at first glance, looking very different from the classic form that is know as the golf swing. He developed it through extensive practice.

The correct definition of the golf swing is one that obeys the rules of golf. There is no technical requirement to it except what is explicitly written in the golf rules.

Well then, since I can swing the golf club pretty much any way I want, that's exactly what I'll do. I'll swing the club any way I want to produce the results that will give me most satisfaction. The results that will give me most satisfaction is sending the ball to the target. So, I just need to figure out how to swing the club (not move my body, my motor cortex will take care of that very well thank you) so that I produce that result. Once I find such a method, all I gotta do at this point is practice it so I can do it the same way at will.

The concept of right and wrong doesn't enter my mind. It does not belong in golf.

We've been learning on our own for thousands of years, hundreds of thousands of years even and we've been producing extraordinary results all the time. What should be different today? What should be different with golf? Nothing.

I prefer Scragger's note to self. It says everything that needs to be said in a single sentence.