Analysis and Synthesis

I've thought of this just now and want to share my findings.

Analysis. It's the separation of an entity into its constituent elements.

Synthesis. It's the combination of constituent elements into a single entity.

I thought of a whole bunch of arguments and whatnots but all I can think of right now is that I see many analysts but very few synthesists. In short, there are many who would pretend to be teachers when in fact they can't synthesise the golf swing constituents into a concise and easily understood method that will produce a good golf swing.

Oh we can all see what's on video and point the finger at something we see but very few of us can teach how to play golf. In fact, I think that teaching anything is quite difficult and only a few of us are able and willing to do it. Even fewer are successful enough to make a career out of it or to produce successful pupils in turn.

I think that we could all agree on what analysis to make. No that we do agree. Where the problem starts, I think, is on the synthesis. The putting together of all the things that make up the golf swing and organize it in such a way that it is easy to teach it to somebody who knows nothing about golf and still he would learn it quickly and easily.

Analysing a golf swing would deconstruct it into several elements, all of which are pretty well known at this point. Synthesising the golf swing could be constituted from completely different elements that look nothing like the elements we find after analysis. In other words, teaching the golf swing could be done without any analysis of any kind, either by the teacher or the student.

Golf, in its lowest levels of analysis, consists of cocked wrists, shaft planes and extensions. In its highest levels of synthesis, it consists of the final score. But we don't need to analyse the golf swing in order to teach it. We don't need to analyse any technique in order to teach it. All we need is to synthesise it in such a fashion that it produces the intended result. This result is to send a ball to a target using a club.

In conclusion, what I mean to say with all this is that analysis is all good and stuff but it is insufficient for the purpose of teaching. Instead, a proper synthesis of all the elements is required. Preferably short, concise and easily understood by the great majority of us. But most importantly, one that produces the intended results.


Jeff Mann, I mention you now because I feel that you could think that I direct this post to you. In fact I do not. I simply came up with this on my own without thinking about you or your work in particular.

Martin ,

I agree with you 100% .

Example : Puting a picture 50 yr old man 's swing who has physical limitation or flexibility to a picture of Tiger or < insert your pro here> at the same position and critiquing the swing is really pointless and will not help the poor guy get better.

A good instructor must be able to identify his student's ability and physical limitation and work with what they have.

Before the instructors that like to use video comparrison to a pro swing jump on me , I do think there are times and cases when it's good to compare side by side , in order to relay the message or make the student understand what they should do.

Everyone swing within their capabilities and deal with what ever quirks they have. Each swing is unique to the individual, so any instructor who is using video comparision in order to get your student to swing like Tiger or Baddeley is just lazy teaching.

Good teaching techniques build on things someone already knows or finds natural and uses that knowledge in instructing the new skill. Allowing the student to take an active part in the learning process is also a great aid to learning. For this type of teaching to be effective the Teacher and Pupil need to interact together, it is very difficult to do this from a distance.

It is near impossible for this to happen on a site like this and I think most people who register, ask questions and join in debate are quite aware of this. The way members can assist each other is by posing questions, videos etc and requesting advice, others can only do their best to help and Analise the problem based on the information that is presented, this is sometimes limited and subjective. Another way is to join in debate, as long as all parties are prepared to consider other views and pass comment in an adult and constructive way this can also be educational.

As Bill said recently, the advice given is just a pill, you can decide to take it or leave it. I believe many people, including myself have gained useful information and have been given contrary views that make us think through some of our fixated ideas.

I do not like some of the undertones that creep in at times where good intended people are criticised and laid to task for trying to help each other. Those that feel superior to what they find here have the choice to go somewhere else, those that feel they can better the advice given whether analytic or synthetic are quite at will to do or explain in a better way if they are capable.

In conclusion, do better or zip it.

__________________
Best Regards
Brian

________________________________
Funny o'l game!

I hear what you are saying there and the funny part about it is most people woudl think I am off my rocker if I said tiger is not really that good of a swing model. when someone such as tiger misses left and right and double crosses himself so much, then there is a flaw that makes him rely too much on timing. Snead had a much more effecient swing then tiger and it is easier on the body. GIve tiger sneads swing and I dont know if he would ever loose a tournament. ok, maybe a few a year.

Martin, the problem with the synthesis is the analysis is off. people look at shaft planes, path, etc... but very few of the instructors understand the body. As I have said before a pit crew chief who only knows the tires and outer body of the car would not be in my pits. Take care of the real working parts, things on the internal, and the outside will move as it should. A large majority of instructors still think you can alter the swing during the swing, our reaction time does not allow for much adjustment after the first few inches. You better be set and ready to hang on and enjoy the ride after that takeaway occurs. You get the body moving right and the club will move as it should, but that also means you better set up well and in balance. So they can synthesize as good as anyone but if the analysis is off then the synthesis will be as well. learn about the body, then summarize that and you will be able to teach the golf swing.

__________________
always do something different, explore the possibilities, and enjoy the journey

My own teaching philosophy is based on the belief that synthesis requires analysis. That's why I produced my website review of the golf swing using an in-depth analytic apporach. I belief that there is a subset of golfers who can independently synthesise a swing once they understand what they should be doing at each point in the swing (synthesis through self-analysis). Not all golfers can learn that way. Some golfers can understand an analysis, but cannot use the analysis to produce a synthesis unilaterally. That group of golfers would benefit by seeking help from a professional golf instructor who can tailor his advice for the individual golfer. A third group of golfers learn through "feel" and they do not learn by analysing a golf swing intellectually. That third group of golfers would not find my website, and its overly analytic approach, useful.

Whether my analytic approach is useful to those forum members posting their swings for public analysis can only be answered by each golfer posting his swing. I offer my advice in a spirit of goodwill and I do not feel slighted if the golfer thinks that my analysis is inaccurate, or not useful.

Jeff.