Instruction
A Missing Element in Golf Instruction: Arc Height Control
Every golfer wants to know how to strike the ball like a pro, and strike quality alone is such an important element. It determines:
- Energy transfer into the ball (and hence maximal distance)
- Spin rates
- Consistency of clubface delivery
- Gear effect
All of the above factors will affect our ability to hit greens in regulation, the leading correlator to lower scores.
Low Point
As discussed HERE, the pros hit their irons from the ground with a descending blow, where the club is traveling on the downward part of the arc, strikes the ball, and then enters the turf. In order to do this, it is necessary to have the lowest point of your swing arc in front of the ball to some degree as seen in the video below.
There are a million videos/books/bits of information out there regarding low point control, but they are missing a key element. It’s called “Arc Height Control.”
Arc Height
Having a low point that is in front of the ball is not enough in itself, although it is a necessary starting point. If your low point is in front of the ball, we have to match it with the correct “depth.” Think of this as the depth at which the club goes into the turf. Some golfers dig deep into the ground, while other golfers pick the ball off the top of the turf.
In the above picture, we see how a deeper swing arc (bottom) produces a ground contact that is farther back than a higher swing arc (semi-transparent). The video below explains how, with a good low point location, we can:
- Still hit a fat shot if our arc gets too deep.
- Hit the ball thin if our arc gets too high.
What Controls Arc Height?
In basic form, anything that gets your hands closer to or farther from the ball at impact (in 3D space) will change arc height. This is where it gets infinitely complex.
If we are to look at body motions in the golf swing, there could be many reasons why we might see a change in arc height. All of the following can create a change in arc height:
- A change in knee flex
- A change in lead shoulder distance from the ground
- A change in lead shoulder rotation
- A change in spine angle
- A change in lead arm flex
- A change in release/amount of shaft lean aft impact compared to address
These six elements are only the tip of the iceberg, too.
Technique
When I am teaching arc height in a live lesson, I look for patterns. For example, is the player consistently too deep, or consistently too high with their swing arc? If there is a pattern, I may look at the body motion and see if there is something we can change to improve this pattern.
For example, if a player is hitting deep divots behind the ball consistently, and this correlates with a big drop in head height, we could reduce the head drop or add more “jump” through impact. I know that teaching a “jump” might be controversial, but many of the world’s best players move their bodies in a squat-jump fashion. It can actually be a nice way to shallow the swing arc while adding speed. Ever see the jump moves that the long-drive champions use?
I will always consider what I feel is best for the player and what I think they can manage more easily, as well as other goals. For example, there might be ways to add “arc-raising” moves and improve swing path at the same time.
Skill Drills
Any technical changes to your golf swing should be made with an experienced instructor, however, there are ways that every single golfer can improve their control of arc height without consciously-directed motion changes. Through using skill drills (think “tasks” that improve your coordination while subtly improving your technique unconsciously), we can get quite dramatic improvements in our ability to strike the ball.
The video below shows a great skill drill for all golfers using a bottle cap. It’s particularly effective for golfers suffering with fat shots that are created by a deep arc depth.
The bottle-cap drill fits in with the latest motor learning science in that it has an external focus, or a focus placed outside of our body. These kinds of drills improve coordination by focusing golfers on one task, which allows our subconscious mind to improve our ability to coordinate all of the moving parts (shoulder, arm, knees etc.) into a workable solution.
I have developed many drills similar to this that deal with specific issues, such as low-point issues or arc- depth issues. You can learn more about those drills on my website: www.AdamYoungGolf.com/The-Strike-Plan
Conclusion
I hope this article provided you some value. Here are the summary points:
- Having a good low point position helps, but it is not enough. We also have to control the height/depth of our swing arc.
- Many body movements can contribute to the arc height changing.
- Technical changes should be done under the supervision of a competent instructor, but skill drills will improve all golfers regardless of swing style. They are tasks that improve the coordination of all the moving parts with an external focus. All of the leading motor learning science says practicing with an external focus is ideal for optimal learning and retention.
There may be no more painful affliction in golf than the “yips” – those uncontrollable and maddening little nervous twitches that prevent you from making a decent stroke on short putts. If you’ve never had them, consider yourself very fortunate (or possibly just very young). But I can assure you that when your most treacherous and feared golf shot is not the 195 yard approach over water with a quartering headwind…not the extra tight fairway with water left and sand right…not the soft bunker shot to a downhill pin with water on the other side…No, when your most feared shot is the remaining 2- 4-foot putt after hitting a great approach, recovery or lag putt, it makes the game almost painful.
And I’ve been fighting the yips (again) for a while now. It’s a recurring nightmare that has haunted me most of my adult life. I even had the yips when I was in my 20s, but I’ve beat them into submission off and on most of my adult life. But just recently, that nasty virus came to life once again. My lag putting has been very good, but when I get over one of those “you should make this” length putts, the entire nervous system seems to go haywire. I make great practice strokes, and then the most pitiful short-stroke or jab at the ball you can imagine. Sheesh.
But I’m a traditionalist, and do not look toward the long putter, belly putter, cross-hand, claw or other variation as the solution. My approach is to beat those damn yips into submission some other way. Here’s what I’m doing that is working pretty well, and I offer it to all of you who might have a similar affliction on the greens.
When you are over a short putt, forget the practice strokes…you want your natural eye-hand coordination to be unhindered by mechanics. Address your putt and take a good look at the hole, and back to the putter to ensure good alignment. Lighten your right hand grip on the putter and make sure that only the fingertips are in contact with the grip, to prevent you from getting to tight.
Then, take a long, long look at the hole to fill your entire mind and senses with the target. When you bring your head/eyes back to the ball, try to make a smooth, immediate move right into your backstroke — not even a second pause — and then let your hands and putter track right back together right back to where you were looking — the HOLE! Seeing the putter make contact with the ball, preferably even the forward edge of the ball – the side near the hole.
For me, this is working, but I am asking all of you to chime in with your own “home remedies” for the most aggravating and senseless of all golf maladies. It never hurts to have more to fall back on!
Over the last couple of decades, golf has become much more science-based. We measure swing speed, smash factor, angle of attack, strokes gained, and many other metrics that can really help golfers improve. But I often wonder if the advancement of golf’s “hard” sciences comes at the expense of the “soft” sciences.
Take, for example, golf instruction. Good golf instruction requires understanding swing mechanics and ball flight. But let’s take that as a given for PGA instructors. The other factors that make an instructor effective can be evaluated by social science, rather than launch monitors.
If you are a recreational golfer looking for a golf instructor, here are my top three points to consider.
1. Cultural mindset
What is “cultural mindset? To social scientists, it means whether a culture of genius or a culture of learning exists. In a golf instruction context, that may mean whether the teacher communicates a message that golf ability is something innate (you either have it or you don’t), or whether golf ability is something that can be learned. You want the latter!
It may sound obvious to suggest that you find a golf instructor who thinks you can improve, but my research suggests that it isn’t a given. In a large sample study of golf instructors, I found that when it came to recreational golfers, there was a wide range of belief systems. Some instructors strongly believed recreational golfers could improve through lessons. while others strongly believed they could not. And those beliefs manifested in the instructor’s feedback given to a student and the culture created for players.
2. Coping and self-modeling can beat role-modeling
Swing analysis technology is often preloaded with swings of PGA and LPGA Tour players. The swings of elite players are intended to be used for comparative purposes with golfers taking lessons. What social science tells us is that for novice and non-expert golfers, comparing swings to tour professionals can have the opposite effect of that intended. If you fit into the novice or non-expert category of golfer, you will learn more and be more motivated to change if you see yourself making a ‘better’ swing (self-modeling) or seeing your swing compared to a similar other (a coping model). Stay away from instructors who want to compare your swing with that of a tour player.
3. Learning theory basics
It is not a sexy selling point, but learning is a process, and that process is incremental – particularly for recreational adult players. Social science helps us understand this element of golf instruction. A good instructor will take learning slowly. He or she will give you just about enough information that challenges you, but is still manageable. The artful instructor will take time to decide what that one or two learning points are before jumping in to make full-scale swing changes. If the instructor moves too fast, you will probably leave the lesson with an arm’s length of swing thoughts and not really know which to focus on.
As an instructor, I develop a priority list of changes I want to make in a player’s technique. We then patiently and gradually work through that list. Beware of instructors who give you more than you can chew.
So if you are in the market for golf instruction, I encourage you to look beyond the X’s and O’s to find the right match!
Most pros take months, even years, to win their first tournament. Lottie Woad needed exactly four days.
The 21-year-old from Surrey shot 21-under 267 at Dundonald Links to win the ISPS Handa Women’s Scottish Open by three shots — in her very first event as a professional. She’s only the third player in LPGA history to accomplish this feat, joining Rose Zhang (2023) and Beverly Hanson (1951).
But here’s what caught my attention as a coach: Woad didn’t win through miraculous putting or bombing 300-yard drives. She won through relentless precision and unshakeable composure. After watching her performance unfold, I’m convinced every golfer — from weekend warriors to scratch players — can steal pages from her playbook.
Precision Beats Power (And It’s Not Even Close)
Forget the driving contests. Woad proved that finding greens matters more than finding distance.
What Woad did:
• Hit it straight, hit it solid, give yourself chances
• Aimed for the fat parts of greens instead of chasing pins
• Let her putting do the talking after hitting safe targets
• As she said, “Everyone was chasing me today, and managed to maintain the lead and played really nicely down the stretch and hit a lot of good shots”
Why most golfers mess this up:
• They see a pin tucked behind a bunker and grab one more club to “go right at it”
• Distance becomes more important than accuracy
• They try to be heroic instead of smart
ACTION ITEM: For your next 10 rounds, aim for the center of every green regardless of pin position. Track your greens in regulation and watch your scores drop before your swing changes.
The Putter That Stayed Cool Under Fire
Woad started the final round two shots clear and immediately applied pressure with birdies at the 2nd and 3rd holes. When South Korea’s Hyo Joo Kim mounted a charge and reached 20-under with a birdie at the 14th, Woad didn’t panic.
How she responded to pressure:
• Fired back with consecutive birdies at the 13th and 14th
• Watched Kim stumble with back-to-back bogeys
• Capped it with her fifth birdie of the day at the par-5 18th
• Stayed patient when others pressed, pressed when others cracked
What amateurs do wrong:
• Get conservative when they should be aggressive
• Try to force magic when steady play would win
• Panic when someone else makes a move
ACTION ITEM: Practice your 3-6 foot putts for 15 minutes after every range session. Woad’s putting wasn’t spectacular—it was reliable. Make the putts you should make.
Course Management 101: Play Your Game, Not the Course’s Game
Woad admitted she couldn’t see many scoreboards during the final round, but it didn’t matter. She stuck to her game plan regardless of what others were doing.
Her mental approach:
• Focused on her process, not the competition
• Drew on past pressure situations (Augusta National Women’s Amateur win)
• As she said, “That was the biggest tournament I played in at the time and was kind of my big win. So definitely felt the pressure of it more there, and I felt like all those experiences helped me with this”
Her physical execution:
• 270-yard drives (nothing flashy)
• Methodical iron play
• Steady putting
• Everything effective, nothing spectacular
ACTION ITEM: Create a yardage book for your home course. Know your distances to every pin, every hazard, every landing area. Stick to your plan no matter what your playing partners are doing.
Mental Toughness Isn’t Born, It’s Built
The most impressive part of Woad’s win? She genuinely didn’t expect it: “I definitely wasn’t expecting to win my first event as a pro, but I knew I was playing well, and I was hoping to contend.”
Her winning mindset:
• Didn’t put winning pressure on herself
• Focused on playing well and contending
• Made winning a byproduct of a good process
• Built confidence through recent experiences:
- Won the Women’s Irish Open as an amateur
- Missed a playoff by one shot at the Evian Championship
- Each experience prepared her for the next
What this means for you:
• Stop trying to shoot career rounds every time you tee up
• Focus on executing your pre-shot routine
• Commit to every shot
• Stay present in the moment
ACTION ITEM: Before each round, set process goals instead of score goals. Example: “I will take three practice swings before every shot” or “I will pick a specific target for every shot.” Let your score be the result, not the focus.
The Real Lesson
Woad collected $300,000 for her first professional victory, but the real prize was proving that fundamentals still work at golf’s highest level. She didn’t reinvent the game — she simply executed the basics better than everyone else that week.
The fundamentals that won:
• Hit more fairways
• Find more greens
• Make the putts you should make
• Stay patient under pressure
That’s something every golfer can do, regardless of handicap. Lottie Woad just showed us it’s still the winning formula.
FINAL ACTION ITEM: Pick one of the four action items above and commit to it for the next month. Master one fundamental before moving to the next. That’s how champions are built.
PGA Professional Brendon Elliott is an award-winning coach and golf writer. You can check out his writing work and learn more about him by visiting BEAGOLFER.golf and OneMoreRollGolf.com. Also, check out “The Starter” on RG.org each Monday.
Editor’s note: Brendon shares his nearly 30 years of experience in the game with GolfWRX readers through his ongoing tip series. He looks forward to providing valuable insights and advice to help golfers improve their game. Stay tuned for more Tips!
‘Why would anybody want to change that swing?’ – Brandel Chamblee says PGA Tour star was wrong to change his swing
‘The stupidest freaking thing I’ve ever heard’ – Billy Horschel slams Open idea suggested by Padraig Harrington
WITB Time Machine: Brandt Snedeker’s winning WITB, 2018 Wyndham Championship
Golfer proudly posts photo of ball mark on iron, receives immediate roasting
WITB Time Machine: Matthew Wolff’s winning WITB, 2019 3M Open
Oakmont Country Club bans Wyndham Clark over locker incident; Reveals specific conditions to earn reinstatement
Adam Scott puts Callaway blades in the bag at Wyndham Championship
Report: LIV star fires caddie and coach in shock shake up
Rickie Fowler makes equipment change to ‘something that’s a little easier on the body’
The championship formula: How 3 key stats separate winners from the field
Peter Malnati WITB 2025 (August)
Peter Malnati what’s in the bag accurate as of the Wyndham Championship. More photos from the event here. Driver: Titleist...
Cameron Young’s winning WITB: 2025 Wyndham Championship
Driver: Titleist GT2 (9 degrees, A1 SureFit setting) Buy here. Shaft: Mitsubishi Tensei 1K Pro Orange 70 TX 3-wood: Titleist...
Camilo Villegas WITB 2025 (July)
Camilo Villegas WITB accurate as of the Wyndham Championship. Villegas was undecided on a 3-wood when we shot his bag. ...
WITB Time Machine: Brandt Snedeker’s winning WITB, 2018 Wyndham Championship
Brandt Snedeker fired a final-round 65 at the 2018 Wyndham Championship to outlast Webb Simpson and C.T. Pan. His 5-under...
Pingback: 1?? Top 8 h? quang hi?u chi?u cao m?i nh?t n?m 2022
sam
Sep 13, 2017 at 3:31 pm
Harrand is a bitter bitter person who blames others for his failure as a baseball pitcher, because they mislead him with their scientific advice.
Dr. F.
Aug 26, 2017 at 12:24 pm
Rob Harrand:
So what’s your diagnosis of elite athlete brain cramps when they try to scientifically understand their sport? Let me give you my answer.
Elite athletes are natural athletes and they grow into their sport until they hit their ceiling, and then as adults they seek answers to their limitations.
They look to scientific analysis and that messes up their juvenile brains. Yes, most of these athletes in their teens and twenties are still children no matter how mature they may sound.
Science baffles their simplistic minds, and they crash in confusion. Their athletic abilities are ‘artistic’ and resides in their ‘unconscious’ minds. It just happens because they are naturals!
Give them conscious scientific instruction and their childish unconscious mind is thrown into chaos. They don’t have enough intellectual brain power to handle the new reality.
I see that attitude in your braggadocio — my speed, my vertical, my athletic record. Because you’re successful doesn’t mean you can teach others.
Look, science is a b!tch and if you try to embrace her without a basic knowledge of physics, math, anatomy, psychology, she will screw you up. That’s what your failed friends experienced mainly because those who attempted to inject science into their sports mind were incompetent.
Golf is in turmoil scientifically.Other sports such as olympic sports have utilized scientific knowledge to the max. Other sports such as ol’ boy team sports not so much. Golf primitively.
Now tell us how you think science can be effectively used to help golfers, or are you just an elite level athletic luddite.
Rob Harrand
Aug 26, 2017 at 6:56 pm
Oh you’re Dr. F now! How’s that working out for you? Any better? You sure write poorly for a doctor. Hmmm…
Anyway, I’m good and I couldn’t care less about your angry, inchorent babble. You’re going off on tangents and no one cares. Good luck with the new title.
ooffaa
Aug 27, 2017 at 12:58 pm
Cut and running back to your perfect world? Why did you come here anyway with your attack on the article author Adam Young? You avoid answering basic questions about your academic qualifications, likely because you have none. You are a fraud.
stephenf
Aug 30, 2017 at 9:59 am
Pure ad hominem. Address the substance or don’t bother responding.
stephenf
Aug 30, 2017 at 11:20 am
Actually, there’s a core commonality between what both of you are saying — that good players tend to be good because they’ve set a task for the body to accomplish with a club, the body does it, and they feel “this,” not an infinitely parsed set of linear instructions. It’s just that you (Rob) seem to be saying this is how it ought to be and is a kind of genius in itself (which is more or less my position), and “Dr. F” is flexing his alleged scientific-elite muscles and saying these guys are functioning at instinctive and primal levels and are either disinclined or not capable (most of them, anyway) of getting the science right. Or maybe he’s just saying the science is _different_, but to the degree that he’s saying that, I don’t know what the relevance here is. It ends up being just academic.
Have no idea if this guy is an actual scientist, but continuing to insist that “I have the science, you don’t, ordinary people don’t understand it like I do” is really just another form of posing out here. Maybe he knows something worth knowing, maybe not. What you’re saying here and what “ooffaa” says below tends to make me think he’s the same guy I’ve seen doing this kind of voguing on other posts, but I’m not that interested in finding out, honestly. I’m just interested in responding on the substance of what is said.
Aside from that is the question of whether knowing whatever he knows would help somebody play better or enjoy the game more. More generally, it’s the question of what role disintegrative or dissectional analysis plays in performance. So, for instance, is an athlete or musician who plays with a whole-body feel and who isn’t aware of dissected bits of analysis somehow inferior? Was Snead inferior as a golf thinker to Dr. F because he resisted too much dissection? Jack Grout and Jack Nicklaus? Is the person who drives a car — who, with life at stake, merges into traffic, brakes at the right time and at the right rate, switches lanes while unconsciously calculating rates of acceleration and deceleration, taking in a wide range of variables and factors, etc., without thinking about the science of every separate movement, the anatomy of the foot on the accelerator and the brake, the way the eyes and ears receive stimuli that are processed by the brain, the speed of neural responses, etc., working at a lower level or a higher level than the scientist who looks at those things in a lab? Was Snead working at a lower or higher level than somebody on Trackman or some other analysis hardware? Was Grout, or Toski, or Flick, or even Leadbetter or Harmon, working at a lower or higher level than the guy reading the swing monitor at the local golf school or discount store?
That’s not to say there isn’t a role for science. I’m totally interested in it myself, starting with being one of the only people to really digest Cochran and Stobbs (Search for the Perfect Swing) back when only a few golf nerds were paying attention to it. There have been many other analyses since then, of course, and other systems and ways of thinking about the science of the swing. Certain aspects of the Ralph Mann thing are valid and interesting, for instance. But it’s always a double-edged sword, and I would say that to some extent analysis is on a separate track, sort of like how the research of physics as it applies to auto production is different from what a Formula One driver does and needs to think about, or not think about. Those two tracks inform each other at certain points, but one doesn’t substitute for the other. And I’m not sure the genius of the body and brain are being given full accord by people like Dr. F.
EngineerBob
Aug 30, 2017 at 3:50 pm
If you are only interested in the ‘substance’ you should tell us what your academic qualifications are to post what you posted. Harrand too, otherwise both of you are only anonymous pedants.
Rob Harrand
Aug 30, 2017 at 6:03 pm
Ok I have a PhD from USC. My IQ is 170 and I’m a certified member of Mensa. I’ve never picked up a golf club let alone played sports or taught anyone. Better? Am I qualified in your eyes now?
Chipolte
Sep 7, 2017 at 8:12 pm
Yer qualified to teach the golf swing… theoretically.
Rob Harrand
Aug 30, 2017 at 5:44 pm
I agree. I think everything you’ve written here is well thought out.
A Cheetah can run upwards of 75 MPH. There is an absolute ton of science involved. However, a Cheetah knows none of it. It’s pure, innate, instinct. If it were possible for the Cheetah to consciously internalize and process all of the science occurring, it would only serve to slow him down.
Regardless, I don’t really care how someone achieves whatever it is they’re trying to achieve. Whether it be a science experiment with sensors and isolated drills and gadgets or externalizing on a focal point, so be it. Whatever works for the individual is all that matters.
Personally, I love science. I’m a natural “thinker”. I enjoy learning how things work. However, in my experience both playing and coaching and being around both elite and average every day athletes, the overwhelming majority of human beings perform at their best with a quiet mind… similar to being in “the zone”.
Like I said earlier, I think sports-science and technology has its place. I think it’s a truly great feedback tool, I just don’t think it’s always the best instructional tool. If anyone disagrees with that, fine. Like I said, no one person knows it all. No need to be totally outraged and condescending.
allan a
Aug 30, 2017 at 6:59 pm
“… with a quiet mind…”. IOW… ignorance is bliss…. particularly if you operate with an athletic brainlet.
Still no academic qualifications? Wonder why.
Rob Harrand
Aug 30, 2017 at 7:48 pm
And what exactly is your claim to fame? Let’s hear it. Please. By all means. Let’s hear all your “academic qualifications”, accolades, all the books you’ve read, all the success stories of all of your students. You seem to have it all figured out. Seriously man, I’m looking forward to hearing it.
It’s absolutely amazing how someone can take issue with what I just wrote. I literally just wrote “regardless, I don’t really care how someone achieves whatever it is they’re trying to achieve. Whether it be a science experiment with sensors and isolated drills and gadgets or externalizing on a focal point, so be it. Whatever works for the individual is all that matters”… and yet you still throw stones.
Shows your true character.
Andrew Cooper
Aug 24, 2017 at 10:28 am
Not sure how a golfer consciously trying to squat then jump is going to help them to consistently find the sweet spot on a club head moving 100mph+? In the split second from top of the backswing to impact?
Sure some long hitters do that, but it’s confusing what happens in the swing (and what we see) with what you should be thinking of doing.
Lover
Aug 24, 2017 at 9:01 pm
Exactly
Rob Harrand
Aug 25, 2017 at 12:40 am
I agree 100%. I liked the article but to me, this is a result, not a focal point. Or at least it should be.
Lorne
Aug 25, 2017 at 2:53 pm
Your focal point externalizing is simply “mind over matter” subconscious intent.
It may work for you but it won’t work for the average non-athletic recreational golfer who refuses to condition his body and won’t make a commitment to intensive practice.
Your approach is elite and impractical for most golfers.
Rob Harrand
Aug 25, 2017 at 6:13 pm
No, it’s actually not. If you don’t understand, please don’t comment and insinuate that I don’t know what I’m talking about. It’s worked with everyone I’ve coached and has been adopted by mainstream Baseball and is working wonders.
And please, do tell, what does work for the non-athletic, recreational golfer who refuses to condition their body and won’t make a commitment to intensive practice? Praying? Give me a break.
ooffaa
Aug 26, 2017 at 12:13 pm
What does work for the non-athletic recreational golfer? Simple. They come to this open forum to declare their love for their new clubs — aka ‘gearheads’. This forum is full of them.
Andrew Cooper
Aug 26, 2017 at 3:54 am
Lorne, External focus training is the opposite of elite and impractical! It’s saying here’s a task, here’s the tool, let your instincts work out how to perferom the task, and use trial and feedback to refine how you’re doing it. So swing the club and move the bottle cap, hit a tee, brush the grass e.t.c. It’s nothing new, just Harvey Penick and others didn’t label it with a scientific term. Too high, too low, just right-that’s a much more practical way to learn arc height control. Trying to swing a club head travelling at 100+mph and conciously thinking about what height you want it come into the ball, within a 1/2″ margin for success and failure, with an instruction to keep your head still, knees flex, lead shoulder rotation e.t.c. is probably going to be tough for most golfers.
stephenf
Sep 1, 2017 at 2:57 am
bing.
stephenf
Sep 1, 2017 at 3:06 am
I really wonder what would happen if somebody used modern quantified measuring capabilities to test the old Ernest Jones approach, which is really along these lines. For anybody who’s not familiar, it’s the idea that a swinging motion will teach your body “parts” what to do — in other words, that we get causality backward in observation after observation regarding the swing. We think of moves B, T, and X as making the swing happen, when in fact a swinging motion tends to make BTX happen along with every other letter in the alphabet. One of the smartest things I ever heard anybody say about the swing has been repeated by several teachers down through the last four or five generations, but the earliest iteration of I ever heard was from Seymour Dunn: Never confuse what happens in the swing with something you have to try to do. That would be a total game-changer for a lot of players, if they caught hold of it.
Again, that’s not to say there’s _never_ a right occasion for working on parts — Penick, Grout, Toski, Flick, Jones, et al. certainly did it when they thought it was appropriate — but rather that the direction ought to be less dissectional and disintegrative, and less focused on working with individual body movements except when needed for remediation, never as an end in itself.
Andrew Cooper
Sep 1, 2017 at 5:11 am
Absolutely agree. Dunn was spot on; confusing what happens with what you should be trying to do. But it happens all the time, probably more than ever now with all the exposure to swing analysis, and bio mechanists breaking down every moving part. We’re conditioned into doing it. You can’t watch TV golf for 5 minutes before a slow mo analysis telling us what went “wrong” with a tour players’ swing, or showing a particular move that explains why they’re on tour and you’re not. We’re told, look at Hogan’s/Garcia’s amazing lag, or Nicklaus’s leg drive, or how “connected” Faldo/Price are or, today (and this article throws it in too even though it seems aimed at a higher handicapper simply trying not to top the ball or stick the club in the ground), look at this long drive champ and his “squat-jump” move and all the GRF-why don’t you try to do that too?!
Rob Harrand
Sep 1, 2017 at 2:49 pm
Yep! Brilliant. Better not let the miserable “academic” forum trolls see this.
stephenf
Aug 30, 2017 at 11:41 am
It’s totally not. See Facebook post above. This is simply one of those “whatever a current player is doing, you try it too” things.
If you go to the list of greatest players in history, the only one you’re going to see with a “squat-jump” is Woods, and his greatest stretches came when he was doing this the least.
Scott
Sep 1, 2017 at 8:40 am
Yep. And ANYONE recommending that move should not be handing out advise. Sure a select few can do it at a high level. A few out of millions. This article is a “shank” based on that comment alone. Now this guy wants people to swing like long drive guys? How many of the long drive guys can break 80, or 90.
Rob Harrand
Aug 23, 2017 at 4:34 pm
By FAR, the biggest problem I’ve encountered over and over again, in all my years of Pitching professionally, playing College Basketball and competing in Long Drive, is that the overwheming majority of sports instructors teach almost everything as a conscious movement. It’s a massive, detrimental mistake. The goal should be to 1) make sure you properly conceptualize what exactly it is you’re trying to accomplish, 2) externalize on a focal point and 3) let “intent” subsconsciously dictate technique. When you do these things, you’re going to improve far more quickly than breaking things down into a hundred different pieces, using beach balls and garden hoses and whatever the hell else, as training aids. You’re also going to reduce your risk of injury because you’re not going to be forcing artifical positions. Lastly, you’re going to eliminate any chance of paralysis by analysis, which, as we’ve seen with numerous big time athletes, can totally destroy a career. Everything else should be handled in the weight room (strength, mobility, flexibility, etc). We overcomplicate everything and it’s ridiculous.
Rob.
Dr. Freud
Aug 23, 2017 at 6:32 pm
Rob, you simply don’t understand Learning & Motor Control Science as it applies to adults.
A child’s growing brain can do what you prescribe because children are like plastic sponges. Adults cannot learn effectively in this manner because their mature brains resist change. Adults must train in slow conscious segments and then work to put it all together into their unconscious mind.
Go buy a college textbook on L&MC, read, study and even ask for professional academic help on things you don’t understand.
Furthermore, your “intent” is simply “desire” or at worse “hope”.
As for you “subconscious” state of mind, that does not exist in the science of psychology. You are either operating consciously or unconsciously/automatic.
Your ‘subconsciousness’ is simply sliding in or out of consciousness or unconsciousness. It’s like a ‘twilight zone’ state of mind and unstable too.
When golfers say they feel “effortless power” they are talking about an automatic unconscious state of mind after experiencing good results.
Rob Harrand
Aug 23, 2017 at 9:31 pm
Dr. Freud is it? Quite the self-appointed title.
“Go buy a college textbook on L&MC, read, study and even ask for professional academic help on things you don’t understand”.
Is your PhD in condescension by chance?
For what it’s worth, I’ve spent 25 years as an athlete, up to the professional level. I’ve been around elite High School, College and Professional athletes my entire life. I’ve worked with several of the biggest names in sports instruction and strength training in the world and I’ve spent my entire adult life training athletes of all ages, in multiple sports. Lastly, I built myself a 96 mph fastball, a 44 inch vertical and a swing-speed approaching 150 mph, using the very approach I referenced.
On the flip side, I’ve seen first hand what happens to athletes when they break everything down, micro-analyze every aspect of their body and technique and perform countless repetitions of gimmicky drills, and it’s not good. Not mentally or physically.
Now by no means am I delusional or arrogant enough to think one man knows it all but I do know that quieting the mind and keeping things as simple and natural as possible should be the goal of every instructor. The more talented the individual, the less instruction they typically require.
Other than condescending, I don’t know who you are or what your claim to fame is, but the fact that you see fault in this approach tells me everything I need to know.
alan a
Aug 24, 2017 at 10:21 pm
Questions: Have you studied any scientific subjects that you applied to your teaching of sports? It seems golf is on a scientific binge with force plates, 3D video imaging, K-Vest, Trackman, etc.. Have you ever used these scientific instruments to analyze a golf swing? What is your opinion about formal scientific approach to sports? Thanks.
Rob Harrand
Aug 25, 2017 at 12:39 am
Based on some of the responses on these forums, I’m not sure if this is an angry, loaded question or you’re genuinely curious, but I’ve used all of the above. I love science and I’m definitely not one of these old school, anti-science guys. I think sports-science and technology is a great FEEDBACK tool that definitely has its place. I just don’t think it’s always the best TEACHING tool. That might sound contradictory but it’s actually not.
allan a
Aug 25, 2017 at 3:07 am
You’ve obviously developed a successful teaching technique based on personal accomplishments and experiences. Do you have any scientific academic qualifications in teaching sports or is it only experiential? Thanks.
Steve Wozeniak
Aug 24, 2017 at 1:39 pm
Rob……..is spot on!!!! Hey GolfWRX why don’t you get him to do a few articles for you.
Steve Wozeniak PGA
ooffaa
Aug 24, 2017 at 3:05 pm
Rob is a jock and you are a suckup.
Rob Harrand
Aug 24, 2017 at 6:36 pm
And you offer nothing of value so why bother commenting?
ooffaa
Aug 24, 2017 at 9:27 pm
It’s obvious you are a dumb jock and Steve too.
Rob Harrand
Aug 25, 2017 at 12:29 am
Sure, if that’s what makes you happy. Done yet?
ooffaa
Aug 25, 2017 at 2:22 pm
Article author Adam Young ignores your silly attacks. Does that make you happy?
Engineer Grad Golfer
Aug 24, 2017 at 3:40 pm
Wozeniak:– “Let me first talk about a quick definition. If I took a string with a rock attached to its end, held it between my thumb and forefinger and twirled my fingers around that rock would spin around on the end of the string as well. The faster I twirled the faster the rock would fly through the air. My hand would represent an inner moving force (centripetal force) the rock would represent the resulting outer moving force (centrifugal force) and the two forces would be equal. In short, the inner force controls and determines the outer force that is centripetal force. Translated to golf, centripetal force allows you to swing the club powerfully and repetitively.”
_______________________
Steve, if you were an engineering student you would get a big fat “F” in physics for this explanation of centripetal and centrifugal force. Fyi, there is no centrifugal force in a rotating system, none. You are making up this force because you ‘feel’ something pulling you out. Your Newtonian frame of reference is wrong wrong wrong.
MechEngBob
Aug 24, 2017 at 10:14 pm
LOL, that’s right. If you have two equal and opposite forces you have a static situation and nothing moves. Since centripetal force is applied in rotatory movement there can be no equal and opposite centrifugal force otherwise rotation would stop. Simple Statics & Dynamics 101.
Adam Young
Aug 28, 2017 at 11:45 am
Hi Rob. I am a big proponent of constraints led and task led learning, which promotes self-organization of better movements/skills without conscious thought (my book, The Practice Manual, is one of the first books to talk about those concepts as it relates to golf). The towel drill in this article, for example, helps players to improve arc-height control and low point position without thinking about the movement.
Landru
Aug 29, 2017 at 1:07 am
In short, how does “constraints-led learning” promote better movements/skills? I’m thinking about those large plastic hoops the golfer stands inside and swings/slides his club shaft on the hoop ‘plane’. Am I correct in my example?
My suspicion is that constraint learning actually dumbs-down the non-conscious mind and there is no carryover from training to performing. Perhaps you can clarify. Thanks.
Rob Harrand
Aug 23, 2017 at 4:33 pm
Remember this: “The body will organize itself to accomplish the task”.
ooffaa
Aug 24, 2017 at 3:30 pm
I always thought the brain organized the body.
Adam Young
Aug 28, 2017 at 11:54 am
Ooffaa – the body includes the brain 😉 – however, important to note that organisms without brains can also self-organize (single celled organisms, for example).
Landru
Aug 29, 2017 at 12:57 am
No…. the brain possesses a separate quantum existence…. believe it
ADIDAG
Aug 23, 2017 at 3:47 pm
What ever happened to “what can you repeat”
That’s the lost element
stephenf
Aug 30, 2017 at 11:42 am
Nah. Too simple to make a lot of money on.
Heich
Aug 23, 2017 at 3:22 pm
Once again,
“This is where it gets infinitely complex.”
You don’t know how to teach. You should not teach. This is not the way to say things to people who are trying to learn. This is an idiotic statement. Who would want to do something that is the most complex thing? If it’s infinite, it’s not solvable.
Goo
Aug 23, 2017 at 4:33 pm
Yeah. Hyperbole and superfluousness hasn’t done anybody any good, evah
Lorne
Aug 24, 2017 at 4:00 pm
Why are you resorting to personal attacks? You obviously cannot challenge nor understand the out of context statement that you oppose. Be fair and discuss politely.
Heich
Aug 24, 2017 at 6:29 pm
I quantified my reasoning quite succinctly, whereas the writer of the article used hyperbole and superfluousness and made it impossible for any human to ever achieve the goals he proposed by saying it was “infinitely complex.” If you do not understand mathematical equations perhaps you should butt out
ooffaa
Aug 24, 2017 at 9:31 pm
Who are you to tell somebody not to teach if that is their livelihood? Perhaps you should butt out.
Tata
Aug 25, 2017 at 3:06 am
Good, I can feel your anger. Strike me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Lover
Aug 26, 2017 at 2:13 am
Surely you must have had really bad teachers sometime in your life at some point in something you wanted to learn? I think people need to speak up and tell bad teachers that they are doing a bad job if somebody else does a better job of it, just like in anything career.
Lover
Aug 24, 2017 at 9:01 pm
Oh why don’t you boys both kiss and make up
Adam Young
Aug 28, 2017 at 12:04 pm
Hi Heich. My “infinitely complex” statement was surrounding the amount of variables involved (and many ways in which those variables can operate). Unfortunately, it is infinitely complex (if you don’t believe me, have a go at explaining the body movements required to control low point alone).
HOWEVER (not shouting, just highlighting an important part), complex does not mean difficult or impossible. Just as “simple” does not mean “easy”.
The reason for me explaining the complexity of the subject is to show golfers that they would be foolish to try to control each variable. They are better off (for the most part) focusing on certain external tasks (such as the towel drill) to improve the coordinational aspects of this skill, while self-organizing better technique.
The tasks present a simple, singular focus, which automatically resolves the complex movement patterns requires. Just like the focus of “grab the glass of water” self organizes the complex arm, shoulder, finger and wrist movements needed (as well as forces).
It’s a basic rule of motor learning. It would be disingenuous of me to claim that controlling low point was “simple” or involved few variables. And when I have left this statement out in the past, many commenters ask “what do I do with my body to achieve this”.
Landru
Aug 29, 2017 at 12:58 am
You can’t swing and think at the same time …. believe it
larrybud
Aug 23, 2017 at 2:03 pm
Seems to be the arc depth isn’t something which you would or could specifically teach, but just to be aware of. It’s a result of everything else before it.
Adam Young
Aug 28, 2017 at 11:56 am
Hi Larry, – you can specifically teach this, I do it every day. You can do it through multiple routes (direct mechanics or, my preferred, tasks/visuals which achieve the desired result).
Jm
Aug 23, 2017 at 1:57 pm
Do long drivers and tour pros actually physicallyy implement/initiate a squat- jump move or does that move simply occur organically as they unwind and sequentially fire certain muscle groups in a certain order? I’ve heard using the ground so many times yet never heard anyone say whether this is a proactive or reactive force. Also just because a muscle fires or activates does that happen due to conscious effort or due to previous body part/muscle group movements? Pretty sure what a self aware golfe feels is not reflected in real data because so many forces are at work on multiple planes fighting for position so to speak
Adam Young
Aug 28, 2017 at 11:53 am
Hi Jm. Long drivers push into the ground so hard (to aid speed and rotation) that they often jump post impact. You are right, this is likely a non-conscious thing and more of a reaction to creating speed.
Landru
Aug 29, 2017 at 1:01 am
How about jumping PRE-impact ….. just a millisecond before impact?
Scott
Sep 1, 2017 at 8:58 am
LOL! I love it!! Maybe we make a new game and combine golf and basketball. “golfetball”. And we can get the South Park guys to make a movie!
Chipolte
Sep 7, 2017 at 8:17 pm
Golf = Archery + Shuffleboard
allan a
Aug 23, 2017 at 12:40 pm
Excellent article on iron ball striking. I like the reference to conscious and unconscious states during the golf swing practice and play. Drills will train our brain consciously so that we can perform unconsciously or automatically. Btw, there is no “subconscious” state of mind even though it may feel like it.
Adam Young
Aug 28, 2017 at 11:50 am
Good point Allan – I refer to the subconscious only as most people define it.
Chipolte
Sep 7, 2017 at 8:18 pm
People are ignorant about the mind.
David
Aug 23, 2017 at 11:20 am
this seems like something already discussed in teaching and called something different to make it seem new man.
I think you got nothing with this. how is this different from establishing the low point? I just think this is mumbo jumbo.
Adam Young
Aug 23, 2017 at 12:09 pm
Hi David.
Low-point position (ahead of or behind the ball) is very different to the height/depth of the swing arc. Most information has concerned the front to back location of the low-point, without discussing depth. Both are critical if you want a quality strike.
David
Aug 23, 2017 at 12:40 pm
thanks. each players “depth” with vary based on the attack angle right? so how can you say this isn’t being diusucssed? each player will have a different “depth”. Shallow swing arcs vs. steeper swing arcs. Zach Johnson vs. henrick stenson for example (I don’t have their trackman numbers but it seems about safe enough to assume.)
Adam Young
Aug 28, 2017 at 11:49 am
Hi David, yes, the low point and depth combo will be different for every player. Steeper AOA’s tend to have/need deeper arcs to function – although there are several cases where this is not true. While it is too complicated to explain in a comment, I have an article on my site called “Angle of attack, myths and misconceptions” where I give visuals and explain. Hope that helps.
acemandrake
Aug 23, 2017 at 10:19 am
Great article. Question: I dip (lower) my body on the downswing. Do you have any thoughts/drills that could help me “maintain my level”?
Maybe the Bottle Cap Drill Clip? Others?
Thanks!
Adam Young
Aug 23, 2017 at 12:11 pm
Hi Ace,
The bottle cap drill is great for this. However, you don’t need to maintain your level – for example, many players have a squat-rise move (there are several reasons why this may be more beneficial than maintaining your height).
acemandrake
Aug 23, 2017 at 6:42 pm
Interesting, thanks!
Scott
Sep 1, 2017 at 9:01 am
And several reasons on why that would destroy any chance you have to hit a golf ball consistently…
Bob Jones
Aug 23, 2017 at 9:31 am
Several years ago I had a playing lesson, in which I was hitting about an 80-yard pitch into a tight pin. My first practice swing brushed the tips of the grass, my second contacted the ground, and the third went through the grass — all in the same spot, all of them decent swings. The pro said each of those swings would have sent the ball a different distance and that if I wanted to zero in on pitching distances, I had to get that depth issue fixed.
Same years before that, I was at an LPGA tournament following the Paula Creamer group. They were waiting on the tee of a par 3 for the green to clear. Creamer made three practice swings and hit the ground at the same spot, with the same sound, each time. That’s what we’re talking about.
Excellent article on an important swing feature you never read about.