Are you a scientist or an artist?

General Discussion
#1

Inspired by a comment by @Adamyounggolf in another discussion, interested to see how we all swing it/approach our swings. This is specific to the swing itself and not to the process of reading greens/determining how far the ball will go (i.e. practicing with a spray bottle to get the ball wet)

So are you a:

  1. Scientist - ex. Bryson - very technical swing, mechanical, trying to hit specific points in the backswing
  2. Artist - ex. Bubba - it doesn’t matter how you get there but the club will be close to square at impact. Swing thoughts are more basic and rely on a feel than needing to be “in a spot” during the swing.

We’ll go with one or the other, so pick what fits you best.

  • Scientist
  • Artist

0 voters

1 Like
#2

I’m an artist. I “swing my swing” (sorry @Adamyounggolf). I know my grip is weak and the club face is open, but I have enough hand/eye coordination and “athletic” ability to get the club back to square (generally) at impact. I hate lessons - if I’m hitting it poorly I just need someone who has watched me play before to give me a feel for what may be wrong and I’ll try to figure it out from there by sitting on the range for hours and finding the feel again.

3 Likes
#3

I’m an artist who spends time trying to become more like a scientist. With all of the data available now on different devices I feel like I should be able to benefit from the data. But it runs against my true artist nature.

3 Likes
#4

Fun question. I’d almost want to add a third category: power. Maybe: physics, physique, or finesse :slight_smile:

Obviously, we are all some combination of these, but I agree that for most of us, one of them dominates.

For me, it’s absolutely the scientist/physics aspect. I got bitten by golf in large part because I find it a fascinating problem to try to solve.

What makes this especially interesting to me is having to guide the progress of my son, who is much, much more of an artist on the course. In general, my approach is to fill my own brain with technical stuff so that I can guide him without filling his mind with technical stuff. There may come a day when he needs to think about his swing, but at age 7, now is not that day.

1 Like
#5

Former Scientist trying to be more of a Artist, every time I Tee it up.

But the learning from my Science :test_tube: days helps the Artistic Process.

3 Likes
#6

10000% an artist. I have an athletic swing that mostly came naturally. I’ve had teachers fine tune it, but the nuts and bolts of what it’s always been are still there.

1 Like
#7

I’m having a hard time not labeling this as a sexy answer. So good.

#8

I like the power definition!

I try to be somewhere in the middle of all
Three… my beat swings are when I’m swinging hard and free… I want to know why the ball does what it does, though.

I pretty much exclusively think about impact position from a technical standpoint, even if that ends up modifying my backswing or follow through.

2 Likes
#9

This. This is so well said and exactly how I want to approach things with my son. Have you found that filling your head with everything has had any kind of negative effect on your game?

2 Likes
#10

Even though I’m an artist I’ve had moments of trying to be more of a scientist trying to get better, but those evaporate quickly if I can’t play/practice a few times a week. I didn’t notice much better play when I had the time to try to be more scientific so that proved to me I should stay on the artist side.

I’ve had to go back to fully being an artist (which I prefer anyway) since I just can’t play enough.

#11

To @Kaplack post on another topic, maybe I should have added handicap to the equation to see which side tends to be better!

#12

That’s a tough question to answer. Since I’ve started playing, I’ve improved significantly, from struggling to break 100 eight years ago to breaking 80 on occasion now. So it hasn’t obviously hurt me. But I also don’t have “alternate world artist me” to compare it to.

2 Likes
#13

While I do admire Bryson’s work ethic, analytical approach, etc. - I still don’t believe trying to mimic what he does will lead to success for most golfers

He puts in A LOT of work coming up with these ideas and practicing/experimenting because it’s his job, and he has unlimited time. He’s also an incredible athlete who would likely find success with any method he put his mind to. That’s why when I hear golfers trying to emulate a single plane swing, I cringe a little bit.

I’ve had many conversations with @Adamyounggolf about the dangers of approaching the game from too much of a “mechanical” perspective, and I’m mostly against it. That’s not to technique isn’t important, or you can’t find some middle ground, but I think most golfers would be better suited not worrying/thinking about those things as much and focusing more on building skills.

That’s my $0.02

4 Likes
#14

I’m getting comfortable being a bit more of a scientist. I still prefer minimal technical stuff during lessons though. Sounds contradictory but the example would be:

  • coach says “your hitting the double cross because path is left” — this is as much technical cue as I need since I know the ball flight laws
  • “let’s get the right shoulder all the way back in the take away, sit and rotate
  • instructor uses alignment rod, head cover obstruction and exaggeration drills

After the lesson he may tell me some track man numbers but he wants me in the feel channel and watching ball flight during lesson

1 Like
#15

Absolutely - was trying to use the extremes on each end of the poll for guidance.

#16

I can’t bring the “pure scientist” mentality to the course… I’ll have a couple of swing thoughts and use the techniques I have practiced, but will focus on how a swing should “feel” vs trying to think about the correct path and face angle…

That’s one of those things I love about golf. It forces me to live in the shot at the time, despite all the preparation I have done elsewhere.

1 Like
#17

I think it’s a great discussion to bring up. There are plenty of things people can learn from Bryson (work ethic, deep analysis of your game, buying into your own style).

However, I do worry that the golf industry (as it tends to) will take a lot of his approach and sell it down to regular golfers. I guess you can say I’m fundamentally opposed to using pro golfers are models. It’s part of the reason I started PG, I just got sick of seeing the “5 Tips to Hit it Like ___” articles!

2 Likes
#18

Definitely a scientist in all aspects of the word. I am not very good at art, but I’m willing and trying to learn. I feel like you definitely need to have some artistic ability in the game of golf to really succeed. However, my technical nature and career choice makes me Uber mechanical. I’m just now starting to let go of that and be more free.

2 Likes
#19

Right - you can admire someone’s swing all you want and maybe pick up some little tip from one of those articles that helps you. However, as much as that tip may work for you, 9 times out of 10 it’s not being done in the same way/with the same meaning as the player is talking about.

1 Like
#20

There are so many reasons why pro golfers make the moves they do. There are also so many reasons why non-professional golfers can’t make those moves.

Using pro golf is a great marketing tool, and always will be. I just don’t know how great of a teaching tool they are.

3 Likes