I think there's deinitely a lot more to creativity than just technique.

I've always thought being creative is about having the ability to accurately produce a wide variety of shots. I think imagination is interlinked with this as it is needed to decide the best shot for the situation.

For example an uncreative player might have great technique but might see every shot as a lob shot. I think a creative player is a 'thinking' player they don't just hit shots because thats what they did last time, they analyse the situation, they visualise the shots they could hit and use this to aid shot selection. Having decided on the shot they want to play they can then produce the shot that was in their minds eye. They might not have perfect tecnique but they need a consistant execution, so good technique obviously helps. I also think a lot of attention has to be paid to the feels during execution and watching exactly the path of the ball. All this feedback can be used to bridge the gap between visualisation, execution and the result.

I agree on your last statement, Birdie Man! Many people are indeed better served through learning feel through mechanics, or some such approach.

I disagree about the figure 90%. I am not sure of any number to replace that. Why? Because if the pros can get to the highest level, by that route, then would possibly suggest and imply that they have gotton there by the most efficient means and therefore there is at least some merit in the approach.

Imagination lies for me in the realm of pictures and feelings rather than words. An example might be teaching someone in a bunker how to hit it higher. Would you say move it more to low point, more of an open/open proceedure, with a little vertical hinge rather than angled? Or would you get them to visualize hitting it higher, and let their body react and adjust.

Can one learn mechanics from feel?
Can you say after the learning experience, "This is what you did", possibly for future reference, or simply such that that person has more associations with that learning experience, and therefore has 'learnt' more conclusively?

Stan Utley gets a lot of positive press around here. At the last PGA Teaching and Coaching Summit he stood in front of 1000+ teachers and said that he doesn't know much, but someone recently told him that his action was a TGM hitting proceedure. Does he not know much? Or can he more easily relate to pictures and feelings than the spoken or written word?

Surely there is room for other approaches?

I'm still interested in Annikan's opinions?

Principles, Mechanics and Artistry
 

I have long maintained that the Uncompensated Stroke as revealed and taught by Homer Kelley in his book, The Golfing Machine, is the simplest, most efficient move in Golf. I have also maintained that I, or anyone else adequately trained in his Star System of G.O.L.F., could teach it to a six-year-old without once mentioning the terms Geometry or Physics, much less any specific application of the two. At bottom, all that is required is that you keep your Left Wrist Flat and swing On Line through the Ball. And with training, that can be done reasonably well whether you are six or sixty-six and whether you have yet to graduate from grade school or hold a doctorate degree in physics.

The language of TGM facilitates discussion of the Golf Stroke, particularly by adults with an inclination toward such things and, also by those who wish to 'talk golf' through mediums that do not enjoy the visual and kinesthetic benefit of 'hands-on' demonstration. However, it is not at all required by adults not so inclined or children not yet mature enough for a detailed explanation of the concepts involved, but who do have the benefit of competent one-on-one instruction. As Homer used to say, "Most people don't want to be mechanics. They just want to be good little car steer-ers."

Regarding my Elkington versus Ballesteros posts...

In the Elkington post, I responded to a request to analyze a specific short Pitch Shot in TGM terms. And that is exactly what I did.

In the Ballesteros post, I was asked to "classify...in a golfing machine context" the principles Seve uses to perform his short game artistry. And, again, that is exactly what I did. Despite its brevity -- and remember, it takes time to be brief ("I would have written a shorter letter, but I didn't have the time." :) ) -- that post was comprehensive and quite specific as to the mechanical G.OL.F. principles involved.

Thank You Yoda!

Seve was 19 when he gave Johnny Miller a scare at the British Open in 1976.
He was/is the youngest of several golf professional brothers, and the nephew of Ramon Sota, probably the most successfull Spanish pro before him.
Manuel Ballesteros in particular was tipped for great things, that almost, but never quite materialised.
But their experience played no small part in grooming Seve for greatness.
He was told by them all from an early age that he was the best, yes even better than his hero Nicklaus.
Now I think if your brothers, especially Manuel, are near the top of the game in Europe, and they are hammering that into you from childhood, you are more than one up already.
Children love INVENTING, especially while PLAYING.
Maybe Seve's short game genius was learned while inventing and playing rather than WORKING at his short game.
Subconsciously rather than consciously.
I think Mac O'Grady did a great job with him, but by then doubt had already crept in. The '86 Masters, I think it was, was the beginning.
Musings of a Seve fan.

Children love INVENTING, especially while PLAYING.
Maybe Seve's short game genius was learned while inventing and playing rather than WORKING at his short game.
Subconsciously rather than consciously.

This pertains to my persistance with this subject. Can we get to a masters level short game (Yes, TGM Masters level), without a step by step approach. Is a 'subconscious' approach quicker, better, the same.

Sometimes, other 'methods' are derided. What do you guys think are the benefits of Seve's approach v/s TGM approach? Are they combatible? Different?

What are your thoughts on Seve, V.J? From a playing and teaching standpoint you have proven your excellence and understanding with TGM. Have you studied Seve? Is it (his approach) incombatible with TGM?

Cheers,

Learning Golf By Imitation, Feel and Trial and Error
 

I see no real difference in the way Seve learned to play versus other 'naturals' such as Bobby Jones and Sam Snead. Each learned a few basics -- grip, stance, and steady head -- and most of all, to 'swing the hands.' And each had effective models to imitate. Seve and Sam had their older brothers, and Bobby Jones had Stewart Maiden. Their natural action allowed them to sense early on the 'lag and drag' of centrifugal force and to swing 'through the ball' without breaking down the left wrist. If you can feel this, you can develop a fine game with little reliance on mechanics. If you can't, there are not enough mechanics in the world to get the job done.

Along the way, these Chosen Ones learned by trial and error to manipulate the feel of centrifugal 'throw-out' action to produce a variety of releases and pressures to control clubhead acceleration. And also, through more countless hours of experiementation, to sense through their hands minute differentiations in the clubface alignment and layback and the effects on ball behavior.

The end result of all this is that they learned to control the golf club -- face, head and shaft -- with their hands. That is the job of learning golf. Yes, it can be done -- more or less -- by 'feel' alone. But the sure way is to introduce precision mechanics to the process.

Ask Ben Hogan.

Two years ago a kid from Fulton, MS won the US KIDS WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP. He was nine years old at the time and shoots underpar to win the tournament. He would ask me questions like "don't all balls fly at the same height?" or "do you see red lines going into the hole?" To me that kid doesn't have to be taught TGM the way one with less natural talent for the game must be.

I had a 5 Time winner on tour going through a major swing change. "Now it will take some time" I said to him. "Not for me. I do things with a golf club that other people can't." He wasn't being hostile or cocky, he was just stating his past experience with the game.

Although complex at first glance (and the 2nd,3rd,4th....) Homer's work is really quite simple. The book is clear in its approach to better golf and a great number of drills, practice procedures, and playing procedures are there for us to use.

People like Lynn, Ben, Alex, Noel, Gring, really bring the book to life. At the same time, you don't have to learn it or teach it just like someone else. Different personalities will teach TGM different ways, that is one of the built in freedoms of the system.

On the same note, teaching Joe the 20 handicapper-Eric the #40 player in the world-and Ross the 9 year old prodigy are all different. So...my opinion on learning mechanics (alignments for different shots) can be concious, subconcious, self taught, or learned from someone else. There is no difference as long as the end result (the shot coming off the way you intended) is the same.

FOR ME, mechanics create creativity. If I can't hit the shot I will try and figure out why. Is it because I don't believe I can? Been down that road and the signs says DEAD END for me. I always believe I can. Is it because I don't practice it enough? How many times do I have to hit it? 100,1000,10000. Only so much day light for me. So the stroke components of a shot are a "cheat sheet" if you will. I can select and try until it comes off correctly. I can monitor different pieces and play them into dependability. Pretty cool book!

I hope this helps. By the way, Seve's game was/is great. His full stoke, pitching, and putting are all in the book. Every time I think of him I think of that face of determination always present in the Ryder Cup. Even that can be found in Chapter 14. The only question is can we absorb and apply it.

V.J.'s Voice of Experience
 

The distilled wisdom in the V.J.'s post above is unbelievable. It is golf instruction and commentary at its finest. Thanks, V.J.!

VJ

This is AWESOME!!! Superb post. Would you be willing to expand on this in ole Bucket's Forum? I have a few questions for you sir . . .

Hope you'll except the invite to come on over to the Romper Room and have a little chat?

Thanks!

B