Posts by Go Low in this thread have been deleted.

Go Low

Good Oil

Kooter

Thanks so much for your extensive and valuable reply to my last post. You’re most generous. I might hope to get a fraction of this in a normal golf lesson.

Now like all good info I need highlight the guts of it, log it, then most importantly put it into “practice”. Which from your reply and my recent rounds - it’s obvious that’s what I should be doing, “Less play more practice “

When practicing I most often have a more relaxed and centered feeling. My results are generally better, longer and more measured than on the course. I prefer playing but feel sure if I spent the time I spend practicing rather than playing the results would show.

You described what may be close to my game, “Driving around 200-220 and stronger from 125 out” when my form is on. I will continue to put emphasis on that 125 in, as you suggested and putting. For my physic, clubs, time on the course and understanding of the theory I’m often disappointed my 5 irons and longer aren’t better though I trust that will come.

Some days, like this morning on course I know the feeling is not there at all this is frustrating also. Your finally tips about smiling are so simple yet so on the money. Generally when its not going well there is not much smiling going on.

Thanks again.

Michael

P.S This recent correspondence of ours, would be beneficial to many like me I’m sure, if they took the time to read it all.

P.S.S Golf bald suggest I send in footage of my swing. I’d be happy for your thoughts too if you were happy to have a look
.

Hi Kooter,

Firstly I want to say that I find the posts by yourself and several others regarding the detailed mechanics of the golf swing, really interesting. So much so that today, out on the course, standing on the first tee, I tried to run through all the things that I needed to be aware of and thinking about. Several minutes later, two groups had played through whilst I was still thinking about getting off the mark!

Seriously though, I do try to take a little (and I mean a little) of the advice to the course each time, and right now I am trying really hard to relax over the ball and to take my right hand out of the swing! I admit, this is really hard to do.

I was thinking - I am convinced that I do too much of that! - about your analogy of the hammer, and here I think there is a fundamental flaw.

I am right handed. When I swing the hammer I do it with my right hand, alone, and, as you suggest, am quite good at hitting the nail everytime. If I pick up the hammer with my left hand, we have a completely different story. There will be bruise marks all over the wood withing a six inch circle of the nail! If I try to hit the same nail that I was hitting with my right hand, I now, with my left, have to hit backhand, and I'm lucky if I can hit the wall!

So for me the analogy doesn't work. Have I got it all wrong?

You are right. Some folks are making this sport more difficult than it needs to be, why? I can only guess, what do you think?
I couldn't agree with you more.

Posts by Go Low in this thread have been deleted.

Go Low

Posts by Go Low in this thread have been deleted.

Go Low

Posts by Go Low in this thread have been deleted.

Go Low

I'll keep this brief. As someone who has done some original PhD research in motor learning, there is no doubt in my mind that, for the most part, people tend to complicate things far beyond what is necessary for the average learner. All of the swing thoughts and biomechanics that are tossed around are generally unnecessary for beginners. It's important for a beginner to simply develop a motor program (this is NOT the same thing as "muscle memory" - that term and concept is almost totally useless). There are a lot of PGA instructors (and this is true of a lot of sports with supposedly "qualified" teachers, coaches, and instructors) who have little or no clue about proper teaching progressions, how to properly use knowledge of results and knowledge of performance, have no understanding of the interindividual variability in biomechanics, and so on. Keep in mind that I am not taking a jab at PGA instructors - I'm just pointing out that, in general, there is a lot of misunderstanding about motor learning as it relates to sport.

With that said, I have to get back to my own studies.

Posts by Go Low in this thread have been deleted.

Go Low

Ok, now that I can take a short break from my research and studies I can respond. I'll keep it as simple as possible and try not to use any jargon.

This is not meant as an insult or an attack, but your blurb about motor learning is why I become frustrated with these types of sites and people discussing things they don't actually understand - all the while others get the impression that a lot of the information is factual.

Firstly, there are a lot of great instructors, coaches, and teachers who actually have little to no understanding of how to effectively teach. There have been several studies of elite and amateur coaches to support this notion. Learners will inevitably get better even with poor or no instruction. It is the teacher's responsibility to augment the learning process and make it as efficient as possible. You could take an elite athlete with some associated ability and plop him down in front of someone else who has never even performed a specific skill he intends to teach the athlete, and the athlete will learn and show improvement.

However this is patently incorrect. A motor program does not have to become automatic for motor learning to have occurred. In the beginning stages of motor learning a motor program is largely cognitive, however that does not preclude the learner from having developed a motor program and having therefore undergone motor learning. Also, the notion of automaticity is not a foregone conclusion for a learner in an advanced stage. Motor Program theory is just that - a theory. The Specificity of Practice hypothesis would suggest that the advanced performer is actually more heavily dependent upon afferent information while performing a skill and never develops any automaticity - they simply become better able to process appropriate information (intrinsic feedback for example) in an expedient and efficient manner. Furthermore, there are some who would argue that discrete skills are governed by Motor Program theory while continuous or serial skills are governed more by the Specificity principle.

The muscles have no capacity for remembering. According to the information processing model a learner identifies a stimulus, chooses a correct response, programs the correct response (these three things occur in the brain), then accesses a motor program (this program is also stored within the brain) which traverses the spinal cord and travels to an effector (muscles in our case) causing a movement. i.e. even if you argue for automaticity the choice of the motor program occurs within the brain and the sequence of actions (the motor program) as well as the inherent schema all originate in the brain and not the muscles.

And as an aside, some have argued that a walking motor program may actually be controlled by a central pattern generator which occurs at the spinal level. This is the closest thing to resembling the concept of "muscle memory" but it is still a product of CNS functioning.

(For simplicity I haven't included references for anything I've written but I do have them - as an academic, plagiarism is always a nagging threat)

Posts by Go Low in this thread have been deleted.

Go Low

Thank you. You've proven my point. The fact that these elite teachers incorrectly use the term exemplifies the fact that they don't have much of a handle on the topic of motor learning. Why the focus on "motor learning"? Because motor learning can also be defined as "skill acquisition." That's what a teacher is doing - helping a student acquire a skill. And yet, they don't actually understand the basic principles. That's not to diminish the fact that they are excellent teachers but it supports my contention that you can teach something without fully understanding it (once again, this is not to diminish their capabilities - they clearly have an in depth understanding of golf, just maybe not such a great understanding of some very basic motor learning principles).

How can you understand what they mean when it's clear that they don't even understand what they're talking about?

There's a lot of pseudoscience being thrown around in the golf industry in attempt to overwhelm and impress impressionable golfers. The fact that it's used by the above high profile instructors does nothing but serve to perpetuate a lack of understanding for teaching skill acquisition (read: motor learning).

A good example of this pseudoscience can be seen on the Golf Channel. The Swing Jacket is advertised on this channel and endorsed by Peter Jacobsen and other golfers. The infomercial repeatedly refers to the concept of "muscle memory." There are two major problems with this teaching aid. Firstly, if this thing was to take advantage of "muscle memory" it would be defeating its own purpose. Forcing the limbs to move in this restricted and guided range of motion actually reduces the muscular recruitment. How can you “teach" the muscles used in the golf swing to "remember" how to swing properly if you're not using them? For instance the triceps aren't activated in keeping the lead arm tight to the body - the jacket forces the arm to stay there without necessitating that this muscle even be active. Secondly, research has shown time and again that this type of device simply develops a movement pattern that is dependent upon assistance, and therefore leads to poor transfer in the "real world."

The paragraphs that are beyond [your] comprehension of the subject were written to address the fallacy of the "muscle memory" concept and to show that those who throw it around lack an understanding of motor learning and therefore lack a true understanding of how to teach the acquisition of a skill - the golf swing.

With regard to stages of learning: my contention that people over complicate the teaching of the golf swing was made to address the fact that while it's important to develop a correct motor program it's paramount that a golfer develops a repeatable swing. Look at the variety of swings on the PGA Tour. And yet, most golf instruction is aimed at achieving x spine angle, y wrist cock, z knee flex and so forth without any regard for individual variation in biomechanics. These kinds of instruction and information may well serve an elite golfer attempting to optimize and fine tune his swing, however there are very few of them on this site. The average golfer on this site would simply be better served by getting out and regularly hitting balls so that they can return a square club face to the ball at impact rather than worrying incessantly about variations in grip pressure, proximity of their lead arm to their body, and so forth.

Posts by Go Low in this thread have been deleted.

Go Low

Posts by Go Low in this thread have been deleted.

Go Low

The mechanic and the teacher

Hi, EW, Kooter & all golf junkys

I'd like to comment on the dialogue on motor/muscle memory between Kooter & EW(Elegantly Wasted).

In short I think on the positve side it's great you guys are thrashing this out. As a student of the "game" you both have a lot to offer on this topic, particularly for the everyday player who is interested in getting below the surface.

From reading your posts, my perspective is you maybe at cross purposes on the issue. Still ultimately I believe the reader is the winner (better informed).

For what its worth I'm a sub 20 hcp player who loves all aspects of the game. The posts I've recieved on this site mostly via Kooter, Golfbald, and the pro's have been right on the money. They inform, inspire and ultimately are cutting strokes from my game, while lifting the enjoyment.

I said in previous posts I believe this is an excellent site and has something for players at all levels. "We take what works(for each of us) and muse at the rest".

After all for most it is a game amd should be Enjoyed.


Thanks


Sparky