Science and the modern game

Hi folks,

came across an interesting article and thought it might make for a good discussion. Brandel Chamblee recently voiced the opinion that Tiger should get rid of his coach. The reasoning behind this according to Chamblee is that applying scientific methods to "artistic", intuitive golfers doesn't work, and he provides the example of Seve Ballesteros as a case in point.
As we know, Jack Nicklaus only saw his coach a few times a year and was left mostly to find his own way to swing the club, and he did pretty well for himself. Golf swings today seem to be based on a rigid template unlike the crazy and unique pre-1990's efforts, unfortunately in my opinion.
Have top pro's these days bought into something that may actually be hindering their golf? And do you think scientific analysis of golf is a good thing or has it killed the intuitive element of golf by trying to turn players into robots?



Chamblee: Tiger should ditch the coach
BY Hank Gola

I’m quoting Brandel Chamblee of The Golf Channel in my Tiger Woods story in Wednesday’s paper discussing the difficulty Woods has had in majors, in spite of his three PGA Tour wins this year.

Chamblee has never held back in his opinions on Woods and he’s convinced that Sean Foley should be dropped as his swing coach.

Here, more extensively, are Chamblee’s thoughts from our recent conversation:

What he’s seen in general with Woods’ game:

“I think he went from being more of an intuitive golfer to more of a lab experiment. He went from being Roy Hobbs to Billy Beane, except that Tiger Woods is trying to take that science and figure out how to play golf. He’s a walking lab experiment.

“I’ve seen players try to adopt the principals that Tiger is trying to adopt and they invariably don’t add up. Bobby Clampett is the prime example. At times people would say he was the best ball striker they’d ever seen because he could stand on the range and look like a machine.”

Chamblee was referring to Clampett’s adherence to the “Golfing Machine” method of teaching developed by Homer Kelly, a physicist who applied those theories to the golf swing. The eccentric Mac O’Grady, who later worked with Seve Ballesteros, was another “Golfing Machine” disciple.

“What happened with Seve is about to happen with Tiger,” he said. “Seve was an artist who had innate ability to play golf and he tried to turn the game into science. When he did that, he lost the confidence he had. He went from being the most arrogant golfer who ever lived to being a timid golfer because he was constantly being told he’s doing something wrong by people who had golf down to science.

“Tiger is constantly being told he’s doing something wrong. That’s why he makes these amateurish-looking practice swings. That’s why he’s one-dimensional in his golf. He still is Tiger Woods. He’s still the only man on the planet with 14 majors and 74 wins and he’s playing against people who are primarily copying him so the original is going to be a little bit better.”

He sees Foley’s breaking down of the swing into its finest points as part of the same philosophy. He says Foley reminds him of an evangelist, “just a step away from the glove doesn’t fit.

“He comes up with all these catchy phrases that he thinks will put him more in the spotlight and it just doesn’t add up,” he said. “It stands to reason that anybody who can win a major by nine shots could still, when he’s being held back, beat people. Nobody would race Sea Biscuit unless Sea Biscuit had weight on his back and Sea Biscuit still won. Well, the weight on Tiger’s back is Sean Foley.

“I don’t have anything against Sean Foley personally other than the fact that he is systematically robbing us of the greatest talent we have ever seen. He’s dumbing it down,” Chamblee said.

“He should take his golf game into his own hands,” Chamblee said. “Tiger’s got the time and he’s smart enough to take the videos of when he was playing his best golf and look at them and then find a trusted friend who’s not trying to make a big name for himself.

“There are hundreds of teachers in this world capable of taking Tiger Woods to the next level. He does not need to know the pitch angle of his hips. He does not need to know the angle of his club coming into the ball or the deplane of the ball or spin rates. He doesn’t need to know anything. What’s going on with Tiger is really what’s going on with the game of golf. These people are in golf to make themselves a name. They’re all pointing at the Pyramids and calling it a diamond stack of rocks and saying they discovered them. That’s what’s going on in golf and Tiger Woods is caught right in the middle of it. And it’s sad.

“Tiger should run. He should giggle at these guys and say, ‘I’m Tiger Woods. I’m good. I can get this done on my own and go back to playing the golf the way he knew how to play golf.’”

Chamblee sees Woods hitting low punch cuts at Lytham this week.

“I did see him hit a draw or two at Olympic,” he said. “The first day he hit one on four to the left pin and when he hit that shot I thought, ‘Game over.’ And I believe the second day he hit a draw on 16. But the problem is when he tried to recreate it, he couldn’t pull it off and he hit it dead right into the trees.

“I don’t have a single thing against Sean Foley,” Chamblee concluded. “I know that he’s a smart guy. I know he knows a lot about the golf swing and it’s fun to geek out and talk to those people. It’s addicting. It’s fun. They can argue. They’ve studied it, they’re passionate about it. But Tiger doesn’t need to know what they know. He thinks he does. So there’s his Achilles heel.”

Never seen Woods as the most fluid or natural golfer, more a product of mechanics amd hours of coaching than natural talent.

I'm not just saying this because I hate him, but I don't think he has the brain or imagination to cope without a full time coach. Strikes me as the john terry type. Thick as two short planks and can't do anything without being told when and how.

Think when it comes to mechanical golf swings, Faldo was king of them all, and to some extent, I think he might have won more, if he had only let his natural talent shine through, but Leadbetter, was just interest in the mechanics of the swing.

Most talented players want to get the most out of their ability, and all of them turn to coaches to help them, are they right, yes properly, as long as the natural talent is not lost, and that is the difference between good and bad coaches.

hasn't Tiger been the product of a swing coach his entire pro career, having read a few of the books about him it shows he was using a manufactured swing by Harmon from just before his first year on tour, subsequebtly using manufactured technique from Haney & Foley since.

So how would he go back to feel! that'd mean going back about 15 or so years to a swing that is no longer natural meaning more training required so again no real feel.

Looks like this fella Chamblee is just after a wee sook on Wood's boaby.
Typical sycophantic hyperbole designed to get his name in print, ironic considering it is exactly what he is accusing Woods' coaches of doing.

Just another oxygen thief.

ermmm. to get that good isnt just about mechanics, the guy has immense feel as well.

He's been coached to within an inch of his life, he's like the manchurian candidate.
If you look at raw natural talent then look at the likes of Fowler and Bubba Watson. Woods has talent of course as every pro golfer has but he's only ever a ball hair from a holocaust on course. Like the Williams sisters his whole life has just been sport from the time he can walk, hence no personality.

ermm , i agree bubba and fowler have natural talent, and bubba is unothodox - so a natural and obvious pick as one with natural talent over technique and a golfer i admire and love watching. but i think woods is also extremely naturally talanted. Players can be both

Over coaching does not work. You only have to look at the vast numbers of Swedish players on the Seniors Tour to see how easy it is to fall out of love with the sport.

Didn't Woods go "self coach" for a while post Haney and pre Foley? I think he was worse then (although I guess he would point to mitigating circumstances). I heard he was analysing his swing and trying to "fix" at a mechanical level there, so perhaps his head is firmly in the mechanics camp so he chose someone whose mechanical approach he thought would best suit him.

He has the touch and talent to go more natural, but if his head is full of mechanics, letting that go will likely feel wrong and result in "runtime error## reboot, reboot" thoughts on the course.

Then again, he has rebuilt successfully before so maybe a mechanical rebuild relies more on natural talent as a base.

The rigid template approach is perhaps robbing us of the spread of swing individuality that we may have had in the past. But I guess those with the most talent will adapt their mechanics to best effect for the long game and rise to the top due to their short game. In my opinion that is where natural talent comes to the fore as the short game heavily relies on natural talent/touch/vision.

That said, I do hope the mechanical tilt that seems to be around doesn't rob us of the "How the hell does he do that?" moments we get when we see someone with a weird swing execute a moment of magic.

Perhaps science is the reason fields are so deep these days, whereas in the past it was more down to talent.

What is this natural talent, no body can be born with natural talent. Sportsman are good at whatever sport they play because they have trained and trained and worked very hard to get better.

Sorry. Chamblee is a plum. He patently refuses to acknowledge data from Trackman etc etc i.e. he thinks that swing path is the major determinant that dictates the direction of a shot despite the fact that Trackman has proven it's the clubface that's ~80% responsible.
The one point which might give him some support is the 'paralysis by analysis' sort of argument in that someone can get too caught up in 'the science'. At some point you just have to hit the ball.
His comments re. Seve's decline are such baloney it's a joke. Seve had a bad back, his putting went and thereafter his confidence and the rest of his game. Also re. Seve, just how long did he have that brain tumour before it showed itself? Did it affect his game a long way back?
Actually, the more I read that scheiss of Chamblee, the funnier it gets. Tiger makes amateurish practice swings? Duh! He's trying to visualise something and get the feel for it you muppet!
Finally, this is the same Chamblee who's coached oh so many players? What a laugh riot. Shut up already. No-one's listening and you making more and more stupid statements isn't going to make them start.

The players like Nicklaus (and anyone else you care to mention) who are good all have the same fundamentals at impact regardless of how they got there. Some get there by themselves, others are very analytical and need detailed input from a coach.

Agree with NBS re Chamblee.

I think Tiger has been forced to rebuild his swing to protect his dodgy knee. If he went back to his old swing, or tried to go with his natural swing (whatever that is) he would win a load of tournaments initially but then would probably have to retire pretty quickly due to injury.

beninho wrote:What is this natural talent, no body can be born with natural talent. Sportsman are good at whatever sport they play because they have trained and trained and worked very hard to get better.

natural talent is a genetic difference between people- in its simplest form its things like hand eye cordination, eye sight, genetic build, height, stuff that your born with and grow into- stuff you cant change- we are all born different. With golf some people could naturally have a better feel.

We can all get better , and pros need to practise hard or natural talent means zip.

But pick two kids from 8 and train them exactly the same, they also put in exactly the same practise and play time etc etc. one will be better than the other

They may all look a little rigid but Mahan, rose and tiger are all doing pretty well this year.

beninho wrote:What is this natural talent, no body can be born with natural talent. Sportsman are good at whatever sport they play because they have trained and trained and worked very hard to get better.

Sorry, this is patently rubbish. The more you train, the better you get - that is true, however the best sportsman isn't necessarily the one who trains the hardest. You think Usain Bolt is only fast because he trains the hardest? And that he has no natural ability to run fast?

Usain Bolt is very fast, because he always works on getting better, maybe not harder then others but surely not far off. He was also running from an early age. I do not believe he was born to be a sprinter, in fact he is very different to any other sprinter around, so his natural body shape would have been a disadvantage. But he worked hard and made it work for him.

beninho

To assume genetics doesn't come into it at all is a bit näive I think.

raycastleunited wrote:

beninho wrote:What is this natural talent, no body can be born with natural talent. Sportsman are good at whatever sport they play because they have trained and trained and worked very hard to get better.

Sorry, this is patently rubbish. The more you train, the better you get - that is true, however the best sportsman isn't necessarily the one who trains the hardest. You think Usain Bolt is only fast because he trains the hardest? And that he has no natural ability to run fast?

This is a subject that I've always wondered about. In golf, I don't think there's such a thing as natural talent, simply because it's not a natural activity. Running, on the other hand, is entirely natural and an activity shared with much of the mammalian world. In that respect, the fastest runners do have some 'natural talent', and perhaps more than other people. Talent in that respect can be defined as muscle tone and fibre type, which endless training and practice builds upon.

smithers feel is a 'natural talent' and hand eye coirdination varies between one to the next!

Both factors will aid you to become a better golfer

natural talent or should we just say genetics is varied and is applicable to everything and certainly golf

beninho wrote:Usain Bolt is very fast, because he always works on getting better, maybe not harder then others but surely not far off. He was also running from an early age. I do not believe he was born to be a sprinter, in fact he is very different to any other sprinter around, so his natural body shape would have been a disadvantage. But he worked hard and made it work for him.

benhio most tall people wernt picked for sprinting because the false myth was that tall people cant be coordinated enough to run as fast as shorter athletes.That is rubbish as usian bolt has proved- he has a massive advantage of having the same coordination of a shorter person but the legs, drive and force of a taller man.

There is no disadvantage there, he has the advantage- he has evolved sprinting- more tall sprinters will come off the back of Usians success

mystiroakey wrote:smithers feel is a 'natural talent' and hand eye coirdination varies between one to the next!

Both factors will aid you to become a better golfer

natural talent or should we just say genetics is varied and is applicable to everything and certainly golf

If feel was a natural talent, youngsters with that talent would immediately be good putters as soon as they were taught a putting stroke. Clearly, that doesn't happen. If you don't play for a while, the short game is the area that is usually bereft on your return - that wouldn't be the case if feel was 'natural'.

As for hand-eye coordination, we all learn that from birth. Some quicker than others, but it's learned all the same.

incorrect smithers.

some people just have more feel and better hand eye than others. we are all 'NOT' equal.

Why and how could youngsters just become good putters after picking up a club for the first time based on the above- lol, How have you come to that conclusion?

And offcourse we need to be match fit or practised in to play at our best!, you are know confusing feel with technique- technique is honed and learnt. feel isnt. Feel wont be much use if your tecnique is miles out

mystiroakey wrote:incorrect smithers.

some people just have more feel and better hand eye than others. we are all 'NOT' equal.

Why and how could youngsters just become good putters after picking up a club for the first time based on the above- lol, How have you come to that conclusion?

And offcourse we need to be match fit or practised in to play at our best!, you are know confusing feel with technique- technique is honed and learnt. feel isnt. Feel wont be much use if your tecnique is miles out

With respect, it seems you're the one making that confusion. Are you somehow suggesting that if you don't play for a while you forget how to chip, but retain the ability to chip the right length? What's learned is firstly technique, which then stays with you pretty much, and then feel, which relies on constant repetition to remain intact.

What I am suggesting is that nobody picks up a club, beit a putter or a driver, and is immediately, naturally able to wield it to good effect. We all have to learn. Some learn better than others, but nobody is innately endowed with the ability to play golf. By contrast, some people are able to run faster than others because of their muscle structure and body shape.

Why do you think i suggested that anyone could be born a golfer. I am suggesting that we are all born differently and that many will be born with the genetics pluses to become better at feel sports or physical sports- infact just about anything. Your trying to add 2 and 2 together but your getting 5. No one is suggesting someone could be born a tiger woods, but then it would also be crazy to suggest we could be born a usian bolt as well. Your contrast doesnt add up at all. By the way i am not disputing that we are born differently - thats my point!

"What's learned is firstly technique, which then stays with you pretty
much, and then feel, which relies on constant repetition to remain
intact."

I am not sure how to explain it to you in a way you will understand - but you have missed the point, i am not talking specifics or short game here. i am talking about the aptitude of feel, the aptitude of hand eye coordination and that it is a part of our genetic make up

mystiroakey wrote:"What's learned is firstly technique, which then stays with you pretty
much, and then feel, which relies on constant repetition to remain
intact."

I am not sure how to explain it to you in a way you will understand - but you have missed the point, i am not talking specifics or short game here. i am talking about the aptitude of feel, the aptitude of hand eye coordination and that it is a part of our genetic make up

No, it's not. Hand-eye coordination is learned. As the father of a young baby I can see it being acquired by her very gradually as she approaches 1, and there's nothing but trial and error involved. If you can show me a baby that pops out of the womb able immediately to clap, or grasp toys or feed themselves, I'll believe it's a natural talent. Until then, I'll maintain that all motor skills are acquired through practice.

If you're not referring to the short game when you suggest feel is a natural talent that helps some people play golf, what are you referring to?

No its not. we all have different reaction levels, this is scientific fact,

you are again confusing the technique of learning the act of walking or grasping or putting or whatever with the physical make up of a person being able to do it better than another.

You have also totally conflicted your arguments as well.

Do babys come out of the womb being able to run, yet you seem to think thats a natural ability yet nothing else is

Motor skills are acquired by practice. Muscle structure, bone size etc are genetic. Running is innate, but what I said was that some people's bodies are better adapted to it physically than others, which could for something natural (i.e. present in nature) could be called a talent.

For unnatural activities such as any kind of ball sport, to suggest there's anything like natural talent is an anathema.

Incorrect smithers- we are all made up differently, there is nothing different between an unnatural activity or a natural one in this context. Our bodies can be made up better for natural or your so called 'unnatural' ones.

by the way do you even know what anathema means?

Smithers
We all have some form of eye and hand co-ordination, would suggest that to play golf, and other ball sports at professional level, then that co- ordination is much greater, than what most people are born with.

A golf coach can only try and bring out the best of a players natural ability, those who think they can do more than at are the ones who write books and slags off all other golf coaches.

SmithersJones wrote:No, it's not. Hand-eye coordination is learned. As the father of a young baby I can see it being acquired by her very gradually as she approaches 1, and there's nothing but trial and error involved. If you can show me a baby that pops out of the womb able immediately to clap, or grasp toys or feed themselves, I'll believe it's a natural talent. Until then, I'll maintain that all motor skills are acquired through practice.

If you're not referring to the short game when you suggest feel is a natural talent that helps some people play golf, what are you referring to?

This is all too "black and white". My wife's adopted brother is about as cack-handed as it's possible to imagine whereas his brother has very good hand-eye coordination and yet they've essentially been brought up with the same opportunities in the same environment. No amount of practice will make the first into a Test-level slip catcher a la Ian Botham.
This sort of thing is patently not 100% learned (despite what that plum Mathew Syed would say) and nor is it 100% natural.

Your right NBS I hate the nature or nuture debate(well i kind off like it)- In truth its about nature and nuture- not one or the other

Also gonna bring up a point based on Smithers pov.

Beacuse i think he is thinking about this from an evolotionary point of view. ie. we can be naturally better at something we have naturally done for donkies years, but not with things we havent natually evolved to do..

I saw this documentary about a ferrel child that crawled off into a wild dogs lair when she was 1 and wasnt found again untill she was 16..

She didnt and couldnt even walk let alone run! because she was brought up by these dogs and only learnt how to crawl about on all fours and growl!!

therefore any argument that running is natural still doesnt add up- even though i agree it is something that would normally naturally happen to a tribe of ferrel kids to adults on a remote island.. Anyway none of that adds in to the argument about us having different threasholds and starting levels of coordination either. I just find it interesting

mystiroakey wrote:Also gonna bring up a point based on Smithers pov.

Beacuse i think he is thinking about this from an evolotionary point of view. ie. we can be naturally better at something we have naturally done for donkies years, but not with things we havent natually evolved to do..

I saw this documentary about a ferrel child that crawled off into a wild dogs lair when she was 1 and wasnt found again untill she was 16..

She didnt and couldnt even walk let alone run! because she was brought up by these dogs and only learnt how to crawl about on all fours and growl!!

therefore any argument that running is natural still doesnt add up- even though i agree it is something that would normally naturally happen to a tribe of ferrel kids to adults on a remote island.. Anyway none of that adds in to the argument about us having different threasholds and starting levels of coordination either. I just find it interesting

Was her name Mowgli!"

Mowgli was lucky because he learnt off animals that could walk and talk

Damn that Mowgli had some natural talent then to learn that from animals!

Based on Smithers comments of no such thing as natural talent, that would equate to saying that no-one person is effectively better than anyone else! Communist talent if you like! All equal!

But fact is you could have 2 kids that put in the same hours with the same swing coach as Tiger Woods from the age of 5 and they would be of exactly the same level! Which simply wouldn't happen as one would have more natural aptitude and spatial awareness than the other.

Yes we teach our children to walk, and talk etc but if that's the case why do some children walk before others or take longer to learn than other! E.g my son walked at 10months and couldn't keep him off his feet, yet my daugher didn't walked until she was 15months. Same parents, same encouragement same techbiques to try her walking but she couldn't do it. Simply because my lad had better natural aptitude for it. My daughter is still the clumsy one 7 years later and struggles to do the sports and exercise to a similar level to my son who is only a year her senior, but she is better academically. Her natural talents edge her toward problem solving my sons are for sports.

Surely everyone can remember when they first started playing sports at primary school? How some kids were able to run much faster than others, kick a ball further, pick up a cricket bat and connect with the ball. All this was before any training or practice. Everyone has different natural abilities, in the same way that people have different inherent levels of intelligence.

As NBS stated, Matthew Syed is a complete plum, basing his theory on the tiny irrelevant pastime of British ping pong, an extremely small pond with minimal talent swimming in it.

And Mowgli was exceptionally talented - he also learnt to sing and dance from the animals.

mystiroakey wrote:Also gonna bring up a point based on Smithers pov.

Beacuse i think he is thinking about this from an evolotionary point of view. ie. we can be naturally better at something we have naturally done for donkies years, but not with things we havent natually evolved to do..

I saw this documentary about a ferrel child that crawled off into a wild dogs lair when she was 1 and wasnt found again untill she was 16..

She didnt and couldnt even walk let alone run! because she was brought up by these dogs and only learnt how to crawl about on all fours and growl!!

therefore any argument that running is natural still doesnt add up- even though i agree it is something that would normally naturally happen to a tribe of ferrel kids to adults on a remote island.. Anyway none of that adds in to the argument about us having different threasholds and starting levels of coordination either. I just find it interesting

I think the point here is that growing up with a wolf pack isnt natural surely, not that walking on two feet isnt natural. If man had wanted to walk on his hands and feet he still would be, he didnt, he evolved. If you have a dog your kid doesnt decide its going to walk the way they do, it follows its nature and stands up. You dont teach a kid to walk, they just do it.

I have no idea who Matthew Syed is, but he sounds like my kind of guy!

I've clearly not made myself understood. I don't believe anyone is a naturally talented golfer, but I do accept that motor skills and things like hand-eye coordination are more easily learned for some people than others. That doesn't mean someone is a 'naturally talented golfer', though. All it means is that they've chosen to use their coordination to their advantage in a particular sport. We all know most professional sportsmen are good at any sport they take to, presumably because that underlying skill is applicable in any number of areas. To suggest someone has a specific talent for something as artificial as golf, or football, or ping pong, is ridiculous. As ridiculous as the concept that their ability is 'god-given', in fact.

PS excuse me for not adding 'to me' after anathema - I thought it was fairly self explanatory.

Diggers wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:Also gonna bring up a point based on Smithers pov.

Beacuse i think he is thinking about this from an evolotionary point of view. ie. we can be naturally better at something we have naturally done for donkies years, but not with things we havent natually evolved to do..

I saw this documentary about a ferrel child that crawled off into a wild dogs lair when she was 1 and wasnt found again untill she was 16..

She didnt and couldnt even walk let alone run! because she was brought up by these dogs and only learnt how to crawl about on all fours and growl!!

therefore any argument that running is natural still doesnt add up- even though i agree it is something that would normally naturally happen to a tribe of ferrel kids to adults on a remote island.. Anyway none of that adds in to the argument about us having different threasholds and starting levels of coordination either. I just find it interesting

I think the point here is that growing up with a wolf pack isnt natural surely, not that walking on two feet isnt natural. If man had wanted to walk on his hands and feet he still would be, he didnt, he evolved. If you have a dog your kid doesnt decide its going to walk the way they do, it follows its nature and stands up. You dont teach a kid to walk, they just do it.

I guess the point of this is that your babies learn to walk by copying you, as this is what they are exposed to. If you crawled around the house doggy-style, and Mrs Digs also preferred doggy-style, then your children would not learn to walk until much older.

So who did the bloke that stood up first all those years ago copy ?

Diggers wrote:So who did the bloke that stood up first all those years ago copy ?

Our alien forefathers and masters, obviously!

you a scientologist Mr Jones

mystiroakey wrote:you a scientologist Mr Jones

Yeah, me and TC are like

I wish i thought of inventing a religion- forget android apps- thats where the money is