Teaching the Right Thing?

[COSTA103]

Hi guys,
Riddle me this...

We've all heard it quoted many times often from some of the best players in the world/history...

"Golf is 90% Mental"...

If Golf is 90% mental, WHY does conventional instruction insist on teaching 100% PHYSICAL?

And...

If the DIRECTION of a putted ball is dependent 90% upon the FACE ANGLE (at impact), WHY does conventional instruction INSIST on teaching the STROKE (PATH of the club-head)?

Just thinkin'.....

dude abides

[kid_fullerene]

Hi Dude

I also feel like even videos that are about 'releasing the putter head' never really show an actual released putter head..

at least not one that I can recognize ..

and you raise an important question ..

even if I can completely control the path .. does that also give me complete control of face angle of the putter head at impact?

or if I get complete control - or something approaching it - does that give me an optimal strike or impact on the ball?

if the stroke and ball contact feels empty .. what happened?

glad the lockdown is giving you a chance to do some higher level thinking

cheers for now

k_f

[Ken Robie]

My answer for the 1st question is maybe more than 90%, in that if the mind can see a solution to the task and then convince the body on how to execute the movement any thing is possible when it comes to the end goal of putting the ball in the hole. Focusing on path "assumes" that the teacher and student are living in the same cause and effect moment of understanding and feel to be goal successful.

The 2nd question begs the "question" of if I can control the path without variance" If this is truly possible , repeatability must happen.

[kid_fullerene]

Hi Dude

Hi WIG friends..

I know I'll regret this .. but the question lingers..

if the path is not important.

than why teach the path?

if the mind is being put to the task at hand and the task is keeping the putterhead on the mutually shared understanding or abstract of 'path' .. and the 'path' is not really important..

than .. why teach the path?

in terms of 'cause and effect'

if the 'cause' of the putted ball has nothing to do with the 'effect' of the path of the putterhead coming into the ball .. other than providing a potential bit of speed..

why teach the path?

I think that it's because it's observable and binary..

you can see a path.. and you can see whether or not you're on it..

can you be on path and still not release the putterhead .. and have a lower quality putt?

yes..

so what really is the task at hand?

sometimes that which is teachable is not really applicable..or useful..

and maybe starts one on a path that never really allows you access to what 'goods' you really need to be able to swing freely in the game..

maybe it impacts the entirety of your mentality and approach to the entire game..

just putting that out there..

cheers for now

k_f

[COSTA103]

Hi Dude

Hi WIG friends..

I know I'll regret this .. but the question lingers..

if the path is not important.

than why teach the path?

if the mind is being put to the task at hand and the task is keeping the putterhead on the mutually shared understanding or abstract of 'path' .. and the 'path' is not really important..

then .. why teach the path?

in terms of 'cause and effect'

if the 'cause' of the putted ball has nothing to do with the 'effect' of the path of the putterhead coming into the ball .. other than providing a potential bit of speed..

why teach the path?

I think that it's because it's observable and binary..

you can see a path.. and you can see whether or not you're on it..

can you be on path and still not release the putterhead .. and have a lower quality putt?

yes..

so what really is the task at hand?

sometimes that which is teachable is not really applicable..or useful..

and maybe starts one on a path that never really allows you access to what 'goods' you really need to be able to swing freely in the game..

maybe it impacts the entirety of your mentality and approach to the entire game..

just putting that out there..

cheers for now

k_f

Thank you kid....
My point exactly.

Please somebody 'splain to me WHY we do not teach FACE ANGLE?
Is it as simple as we can't SEE it because the moment-of-impact is so fleeting and passes so quickly?

dude abides

[Ken Robie]

You're assuming that path is defined by the shaft and not the resultant movement to deliver a square face to the ball that leads to a predictable ball path to the hole.

[kid_fullerene]

Hi Dude

been looking for some stuff on putting and wanted to drop this one regarding our side discussions of 'method variations and ramifications thereof' .. and found this video from Steve Johnston, a very bright teaching pro in Scotland..

in this piece he compares pendular vs. pop stroke putting and his walk through is quite good.

is the arc 'built in' .. it can be if one is rocking the shoulders..

or is it sort of 'dropped in' with a 'pop' ?

a sort of 'swing the clubhead' mentality vs. rotational on a smaller/shorter scale.

might be a place to start.

cheers for now

k_f

[kid_fullerene]

Hi Dude,

My thought on this is the 90% mental is true more so for skilled players like you, i.e., low single digit handicap and better. But for the average weekend hacker who has an over the top swing that produces a weak slice, and generally cannot reach a par 4 green in 2 shots, then they are more in need of acquiring the physical skills that golfers like you already possess. So in my humble opinion, this is likely why more instruction for the general golf population is geared toward the physical aspects of the swing.

Once someone has the basics down, e.g., grip, posture, stance, alignment, is able to swing on plane, can make ball first contact, can work the ball both ways, and so on, then the mental part of the game takes on greater significance. So with this in mind, I'd say that once someone reaches the 10 handicap level and better, then there can be less emphasis on the physical, and more emphasis on the mental. I'm not saying that the mental aspects of the game are not important for less skilled golfers, but without the requisite physical aspects, I'd say that there isn't much hope for the high handicap player who has a shiny new 500 dollar driver, and a 50 cent swing.

Again, this is just my humble opinion. I'll go away quietly now.

Hi Cally

thought I'd borrow a bit of your response and while trying to avoid putting words in anyone's mouth .. I'll do my best to try and relate a side conversation with Dude that is part of his latest thread.

clearly he can speak for himself .. and I can really only offer my interpretation of the Godfather of Gravity's classes at his Institute of Advanced Gravitational Studies..

I believe that his take on the 'mental' piece of this is more 'mentality' and beginning with the end in mind..

and it's more on the instructors/instruction than it is necessarily on those who are the students..

and while we're all students to some degree..

we can't learn easily what is not related to us or taught to us in an understandable or accessible way or ways.

if one tries to learn with the 'mind of a child' ..

think back... there are a lot of 'whys' that are part of any learning process..

a way to maybe describe 'mentality' .. might also be 'context'

and to give credit where it is more than due .. it's also something that the Chairman has spent his career in instruction doing.. things that WIG friends take for granted by now.. but think of how revolutionary some of his concepts were when we first heard them..

anyway .. if you look at the most recent putting arc vs. pop putting video I just put up..

both techniques or paradigms provide a way to incorporate a resulting arc that combines the needed force(s) into the stroke .. and provide 'help' to the golfer... if the golfer is in a place mentally where there is a realization that he/she doesn't have to go it alone ..

and the purpose of the techniques is to bring you to the forces for 'effortless power' if one would be willing enough to 'go there' ..

and I agree with you - none of this was ever supposed to be the 'hardest part of learning the game' .. this stuff is basically the 101 level stuff.. and yes, I spend many days and hours re-taking the same material..

I'll riff on that some more .. but it's not helpful now..

and leave it at that..

'begin with the end in mind' .. usually attributed to Steven Covey ..

the putter head ideally would be flying for a split second under its 'own power' .. in a state of release..

if it isn't .

whatever one is doing is some kind of substitution..

and it's easy for me or any student to get caught up in the equivalencies ..

tangibles are always preferable to the unknown/unseen/hard to explain/teach..

and I guess this where I'll leave it for the moment..

cheers for now

k_f

[COSTA103]

Hi guys,
I have seen a lot of videos that agree with my assertion that FACE-ANGLE is more important than PUTTER-PATH in determining launch direction of the ball,...
They all seem to have the same thing in common?
They all agree that face-angle is the predominant factor, and they have several (very good) ways to determine IF you've achieved a "square" face-angle, but precious little about HOW to achieve it?

It is one thing to put a line on your ball and roll it such that the line does not wobble? Check.
It is one thing to putt a ball through a "gate-of-tees", success at which will suggest that you've accomplished a square face-angle? Check.

But HOW did we GET THERE?
What do we do differently on those "successful" attempts that we (apparently) do NOT do on those UNsuccessful ones?

dude abides

[COSTA103]

Hi guys,
During our local Stay-at-Home-Order, I have done quite of bit of thinking about putting indoors...
I refer to it as my "HALF-BALL-CHALLENGE".
The object is to AIM at and hit ONE side of the ball or another?
I started at TWO feet (see picture below.....blue surface is an ordinary yoga-mat?);
I'm now out to FOUR feet.

The idea is that (mathmatically speaking) being able to hit a selected side of the ball from four feet is GEOMETRICALLY the same as MAKING the putt from TEN feet?
Excellent practice.
It helps you NARROW your FOCUS. and, if you keep track, can yield some excellent information on your putting tendencies?
For example, in my 200 attempts from two feet, I "successfully" hit the intended side of the ball 74% of the time. (don't laugh until you try it?)
Those UN-successful attempts were not offline enough to miss the hole, but I did make this discovery:

Of those in which I was UN-successful, I MISSED (more than 1/2-ball) to the LEFT over 90% of the time???
Since that revelation, I have embarked on a regimen designed to move my typical launch more to the Right.
To the point, that I was able to connect with the intended side of the ball 80% of the most recent shots from FOUR feet......with my EYES CLOSED!

Give it a try if you're so inclined and lmk how you make out?

dude abides

[COSTA103]

Cally-
Note "Cira"?

[Ken Robie]

Lets talk old old school putters for a minute. And I will plead ignorance on names first of all. But you said that your predominate miss was to the left, wasn't it the school of thought that controlled side spin off the putter face achieved a more predictable roll and resultant target impact? Much the same way of not trying to hit a straight shot with your other clubs??

[COSTA103]

Hi guys,

I do not recall that specific "rule of thought"? I'm sure there have been successful "cut" putters in history? Billy Mayfair comes to mind?
It may create a better "roll", but just adds another variable to the directional control?
It is my belief that I missed predominantly LEFT because (at impact) my putter-face was pointing marginally LEFT?
It is not so much that I need to KNOW WHY it was pointing left, just reason how to get it to point a dimple or so more RIGHT?
My last 100 putts my misses were 16L / 19R. Feels like I may have wandered down the proper path?

dude abides

[COSTA103]

Hi Cally,
Yes....that's the theory and I agree completely. But it is only ONE piece of the puzzle, tho?
Problem is that the AMOUNT you'd have to adjust the "ball-position" (I prefer to think of it as "BODY-position") is probably equivalent to ONE dimple on the ball?
And besides, "ball-position" is a PRE-motion consideration that'd be TOO SMALL to differentiate visually... We already do the best we can.
I've already made adjustment to:
* alignment of the putter-handle on the shaft;
* adjustments of my hands on the handle;
* changes to posture and distance from the ball
* re-evaluated lie-angle and corresponding arm-hang;
Collectively, these things have narrowed that Right/Left tendency considerably.
I'm believing the issue now resides in the THROUGH-swing motion?
I have NOT yet discounted mental-INTENT nor visual-FOCAL-point?

[kid_fullerene]

Hi WIG Friends..

some random bits of putting information .. that are sort of 'thread topic adjacent' .. they almost speak to some of what is going on .. and even then, might be a bit parallel to where Dude is trying to go with this..

so if we were to approach the notion of swinging the entire putter .. I guess to abscond with the WIG concept of ACU.. we could have the APU .. or Arm PUTTER Unit and we set up with the weight a bit anchored left .. and we're 'one with the resulting arc' ..

we might be able to do something like this:

if hands lead .. and the path is an arc.. and with a heel shafted putter working along that arc with a bit of 'pull outward force' .. Centripetal .. I guess. we can use Centrifugal if it makes everybody a bit more comfortable.. the toe of the club would take the additional resulting Newtons and would be closing..

assuming I'm somewhere near right or 'right enough' in the Newtonian physics in play here.. .. if you were trying to keep the putter face a bit open at impact..you could get Mr, MIke Malaska's idea of 'Force Vector Cancellation' and a resulting 'released putterhead' through the ball ..

catching the ball with a square face at impact..

anyway .. that's what this is trying to illustrate..

but let's just say that even if you were working in a deliberate ARC .. but were swinging the clubhead .. vs. being handle oriented.. you could end up with something a bit more like this:

as demonstrated by the always insightful Mr. Gary Player.. and I'll dig up some old footage of Bobby Locke..

but it's a pop putting stroke .. but has a lot in common with a full golf swing ..

so if there's no follow through .. right .. you saw that, right??

what was the head of the putter doing at impact? clearly he made the putt with authority .. so the ball was struck.. the face was square.. but it was definitely not a pendulum looking putting stroke..

and the putterhead was clearly traveling on an arc.. Mr. Player obviously had set up in a closed stance ..

how did the putterhead move relative to path to put a 'pop' on that stroke .. and square up in the arc?

there's a bit of Newtonian magic in there as well.. and while it looks a bit unorthodox .. Mr. Locke had definitely figured out the physics and this was described as 'eerily repeating' .

a place to look for the 'apparent' or 'paradoxical magic' .. is in maye the design specs of a body that is weighted to self stabilize and square itself up if it were to 'fly free' ..at least for that split second around impact..

a way to maybe look at it .. is let's say you had 2 hockey pucks on a slippery surface in front of you . and the object of the game was to put the 2nd puck into a target down the line .. but in order to do it ..

you had to put some speed on the 1st puck .. and let it go down the line to impact the 2nd .. and have the 2nd go into the target .. I guess you could use a small hockey net?

only other rule..

the 1st puck has to be released before hitting the 2nd puck ..

you can't hold onto it..

but maybe for a better sight line.. I'll let you use a stick either in the center or towards the end closest to you in the 1st puck.. and for sake of engineering .. I'll let the stick have a little shoe where it an easily attach/detach to the 1st puck in rhythm ..

hope that stupid illustration makes a bit of sense...

and I'll let you go one further .. you can modify Puck 1 to make it more 'self stabilizing' and even flatter or change materials for better energy transfer into Puck #2 .. so you could put in toe weighting .. center mass stabilization .. reference lines on the top to show the center and target line .

yep.. losing focus here.. so I'll wrap it up..

but the rules of physics are still very much in play .... while it all looks and feels like squares and angles.. they're really spheres and circles.. and there's an instant where there's a sort of free transfer of energy .. and while it looks like it's going through .. there's more 'down' or 'drop' in there .. (free gravitational energy relative to the apparently straight but arcing path)

Mr. Locke had definitely figured out how to have it work for him ..

your journey and approach may vary..

and that's OK ..

but you have a real chance if you can at least understand how to locate the forces in play..

cheers for now

k_f

[COSTA103]

Hi guys,
Take a look at Gary Player in the video that kid provided (above and below).
Take a look at about the 1:30 mark when Mr. Player begins to talk about what he is looking at when he's putting?
(aside: he then goes on to discuss keeping your head still?)

I believe he may have glossed over the significance of keeping one's visual focal-point on the PRECISE rear of the ball?
(for the record, one CAN move his eye-focus and keep the HEAD completely still?)

Ask yourself this...
When YOU are putting, WHERE are YOUR EYES focused?
Are you sure?

I believe that Mr. Player was looking at the "A" in Callaway because he was SUBCONSCIOUSLY trying to contact that point with his putter-face.

More on this, perhaps, as/if/when we continue this discussion...

dude abides

[kid_fullerene]

Hi guys,
Take a look at Gary Player in the video that kid provided (above and below).
Take a look at about the 1:30 mark when Mr. Player begins to talk about what he is looking at when he's putting?
(aside: he then goes on to discuss keeping your head still?)

I believe he may have glossed over the significance of keeping one's visual focal-point on the PRECISE rear of the ball?
(for the record, one CAN move his eye-focus and keep the HEAD completely still?)

Ask yourself this...
When YOU are putting, WHERE are YOUR EYES focused?
Are you sure?

I believe that Mr. Player was looking at the "A" in Callaway because he was SUBCONSCIOUSLY trying to contact that point with his putter-face.

More on this, perhaps, as/if/when we continue this discussion...

dude abides

and so ..

to that point

Mr. Player says...

hope that is where you're heading with that notion..

cheers

k_f