How did Seve get to be so good? Do you really think he had a silent stash of Yoda's notes and read them all by the time he played the British Open at age 17?
For that matter, how do most kids under the age of 14 learn? How could anyone under the age of 21 achieve anything without an encyclopedic command of technical instruction????
Break down the words creativity and imagination, and you might have an answer!
I haven't taken any offence...I do think it is a little one dimensional to diminish how 'prolly' 9 out of 10 PGA tour guys would have acquired their skill sets.
I find it interesting how one of the top instructional web sites devote as much time to a brilliant dissertation on Steve Elkington's flop shot can then write (off) Seve's brilliance in three lines(one post), and one line(another post)!
I am still interested in Annikan's opinion since, I believe, Seve's short game was modeled by Mac O'Grady...
I dunno......I guess some would call it imagination....I just don't know what that is really. "Imagination." I just don't like it. Everyone talks about it so much.....no one explains what they think it is. I guess "it's" a hard thing to explain....prolly means different things to different people.
It just sounds like a vague thing to me....and I guess that's what it would be....it's such a feel thing.
I just jumped on that fast because imagination is always seemingly pegged as the universal answer to everything in golf.
Maybe I came out too strong.
...
I guess it's how Seve learned....how most PROS learned....and that's great I guess...
But you can't just take someone who can't hit the ball and tell him to use his imagination....it worked for the pros sure, but it doesn't work for 90% or everyone else....and I'm not sure one could say that people can't hit the ball because of a lack of imagination either.
...I suppose it's how you should execute....with feel, imagination, w/e you wanna call it. "Feel from mechanics."
I'm not so sure it's how EVERYONE should PURELY LEARN though....(not EVERYONE I said...some ppl do it well) I don't think that's what you were getting at....but I wanna say it.
Last edited by birdie_man : 02-13-2006 at 01:54 PM.
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?
Hybrid Mode
