My Coaching Process

[Adamyounggolf]

I thought I would share a little info about how I, as a coach, think about game improvement. The process is the same, regardless of whether it’s a tour pro, or a complete beginner in front of me.

1. I look at the performance needs of the player. Usually, I sue strokes gained concepts to see which of the 4 performance parameters the player would get the most benefit from improving. The four parameters are Max distance, distance control, directional control or trajectory
2. Then I link their desired performance parameter to the ball flight laws and see which one (or more) of those needs to improve. There are 5 ball flight laws - Launch angle, spin rate, launch direction, spin axis and ball speed
3. I then link the ball flight laws to the desired impact factors that will influence them. There are 7 impact laws - ground contact, face contact, face direction, club speed, swing path, dynamic loft and angle of attack.
4. I then draw from a multitude of possible interventions - everything from a simple concept (like explaining low point) to more technical interventions, such as a change in the backswing.

Here is an image displaying this

A specific example of this might look like

• Player has max distance issues with the driver (performance)

• Their spin rate is high and launch angle is low (ball flight laws)

• We could move the strike higher on the face (impact laws)

• The coaching intervention could simply be teeing up higher and working on their arc depth control through the 3D aimpoint concept (see pic below)

Striking higher on the face will create the higher launch and lower spin this player needs to pick up yardage.

It may seem like a complex process, but it’s all automatic for me currently. The main thing I would like to get across is to view improvement from a performance first perspective, and at the very least relate that to the impact factors.

This is different to how I see many amateurs approach improvement, which usually looks like

• Hit it poor

• Pick random swing thing that the latest in-vogue pro does and try it

• Repeat, ad infinitum

This process is fraught with many errors. What a pro does may require 2/3/or more other match ups to make it work, and adding it to your swing might make you worse. For example, try doing a shallower shaft position (like the pros) when you have a wide open face and you are in for a bad time.

I hope the above is not too much info. I certainly don’t expect players to think like this, but to at least have a small understanding of the links that should be made between performance and what drives it (impact physics). Take from the above what you need, and discard the rest

[Bigdadenergy]

I wish more teachers would approach improvement this way. I suppose not all have the technology to do so, but that technology has given us such a better opportunity to identify improvement that can be made simpler than by someone just watching you swing and having to decide whether it’s a full swing tear down, a temporary band aid, or if something is an easy fix.
And I’m glad you pointed out the next big thing rabbit hole. So many players get caught in the trap of constant tinkering. My best friend has always had far more natural swing talent than I have. His natural swing is this buttery smooth lefty swing that reminds me of Griffey Jr, but on the golf course. He tinkers, though. And he’s always chased the next hot thing. Stack and tilt. Natural golf. Single plane. And he’s so much worse for it. I wish someone would take your approach with him. Swing your swing. Let’s look at what’s happening and go from there.
Thanks for posting this. I think it will do a lot of folks a lot of good.

[Wasa]

Thanks for sharing this. A sound approach to teaching (learning) is so much better than the bandaid cure method so many of us follow.

[papageorgio]

@Adamyounggolf

Quick question on helping weekend warriors with time constraints (a good week for me is 45 mins on the range on Wednesday and 9 holes Sunday night).

I am currently fighting an over the top move + early extension and trying to replace it with a sit + shallow move.

How do I maximize my practice time on the range (where I am getting ball flight feedback, using constraints like alignment sticks, head covers on ground, etc) and supplement it with home training without a ball (impact bag, mirror, one hand work).

There is a tug of war between developing the new pattern and the skill of getting the ball to go towards the target. If I miss non-range practice during the week, or lose some of my intention (really conscious practice) the old pattern creeps back and I feel like I am right back to where I was 3 months ago.

Ps. I have practice manual and strike plan…great stuff!

[Adamyounggolf]

I suppose you have to make a decision. Do you want

1. a less-invasive change, that takes longer to implement
2. Get the change done quicker, but may cause more performance detriments.

There is an alternative that I use in my own game, and with players who I can trust to use it (higher golf-intellect). It’s an algorithmic approach.

For example, a player might be trying to add a few moves to their swing. I link those moves to the result - so it might look something like this

IF you need to fix a thin OR toe shot pattern, THEN focus on adding more squat in transition
IF you need to fix a fat OR heel shot pattern, THEN add more rotation through impact

This way, this player will develop the movement pattern you want (more sit and rotate) in a way that is also improving their results.

It’s not fool-proof, but it allows a player to focus on the part of the movement pattern that is most relevant to them at the time.

[Adamyounggolf]

“swing your swing” is a term I prefer not to use, simply because there are so many negative connotations to it.

The other end of the scale is “do this model swing”, which I also hate as it is unnecessarily restrictive.

I think of it more like “adding” movements to a player to improve X/Y/Z impact variables.

For example, if I have a player who is hitting fat shots (low point early), swinging in to out and hitting big pushes and hooks, we could improve all of those issues by getting their swing direction more to the left.

From there, I have several options

• steepen the lead arm position at the top

• get their body to pivot differently

• change whether the hand loops more over or under during transition

• get the player to more aggressively open their body through impact

From there, I will select what I deem the best intervention (if there is one) based on my coaching experience. For example, I might not tell a 75 year old to try and open out like Dustin Johnson, for obvious reasons. But it’s very easy for that player to simply open out their stance and “Lee Trevino” it.

This method means that I can get players to functional impacts through many different means. Players usually leave my tee looking relatively similar, but hitting it better. They certainly don’t all leave my tee looking as if they came from a swing-factory.

[openfacelefty]

I’m on the “swing your swing” end of the scale. Friend is on the other end. I can’t stand watching him swing. Practice swings are so mechanical it’s just hard to watch.

[CoryO]

I like the sounds of this approach. Seems like it keeps the focus on the “why” the student is there, the performance issue, and then the “what”, the ball flight laws, before getting to the “how”, the action steps the student needs to take. I think both students and teachers too often just focus on the “how” without addressing the “why”.

[Bigdadenergy]

I guess what I meant is swing your swing and build from there. I think when people try to make their golf swing something that has zero resemblance or base from their natural swing it’s a recipe for breakdown. I don’t mean go out and just swing like it’s your first time on the course.

[cksurfdude]

Great stuff! Like others have said, it’d be nice if all golf coaches taught this way … find the root cause(s) of swing fault(s) and apply the proper fix (es) for that particular golfer.

I’m in the middle of a series of lessons now, which is kind of encompassing a pretty big swing overhaul - that I really needed - but I can see where we’re heading and am committed to the process of learning and improving

[Kaplack]

@openfacelefty

“swing your swing”

My take on the just “swing your swing” Method is: Do the people who advocate “swing your swing” know anything about Swinging?

Because I know a bit and am totally convinced that roughly 1/2 of the golfers I see Never break 90; because there swing is so BAD.

And because I know a bit about Anatomy, I am convinced that about 1/5 of golfers, Swings are so BAD that with an abundance of practice they will Hurt themselves.

[openfacelefty]

Not saying “swing you swing” is for everyone. I’ve been playing for a long time and didn’t grow up taking lessons so for me I’m more comfortable doing what I know I can figure out than try to recreate someone else’s swing based on specific mechanics.

If you’re just starting or can’t break 100 - get a lesson to get something you can work with and as you improve then maybe start swinging your more natural (but with better mechanics since you’ve gotten a lesson/improved) swing.

[Adamyounggolf]

I do agree that “swing your swing” has many flaws to its philosophy. Which is why I don’t subscribe to it - even though it can be a nice step in the right direction for many overly-analytical golfers.

And changing an injurious motion is big for me - if I ever make bis swing overhauls, it will be part of an injury prevention thing.

It’s interesting that, the difference between many amateurs’ good and bad shots can be very small. It often requires only a small change to make their existing movement very functional.

For example, the slicer can often become a very competent power-fader just by changing the face angle 2 degrees at impact - almost imperceptible to the eye. Or the player who hits a lot of bad fat shots might see a noticeable improvement in distance control when they change their arc depth by just 1/4 inch on average.

Of course, there are consistency issues we have to look at too - its pointless being functional if we aren’t consistent with it. However, most amateurs who have played for a reasonable amount of time are incredibly consistent - they are just in ranges that are slightly outside of acceptability - and the precise nature of golf doesn’t allow that.

For example, my ground contact might hover between 0.5 inch in front of the ball and 0.5 inch behind the ball. An amateur might however between 1 inch behind and 2 inches behind. Same consistency, incredibly different results (and outcome consistency).

[devonpetersen]

Recently I’ve been disliking terms like “your swing” and “swing changes”, as they suggest people have this one fundamental, predestined, default swing. I don’t think it’s good to think of golf like that. I find it much more fun and interesting to try different things in practice that are their own unique phenomena, not a deviation from some default that is “your swing.” Every day is different. Every shot is different. The goal is not to hit a perfect shot with a perfect swing, but rather to explore and learn.

All of which is to say I like this teaching approach. What did your ball do? What did you want it to do? Why did it do it? What else could you try?

There is no “your swing.” There is no “swing change.” There is only what your ball did and what you wanted it to do and why it did or didn’t do it.