The Golf Geek
Prescribing the Next Step for the Time-Starved Golfer
Revealed: The Unconvincing Case For Video Analysis
Posted on 07. May, 2011 by Allan in Practice
My last post on video analysis caused a bit of a stir; I spent most of the day on Twitter debating the merits of video analysis.
I still can’t see what video adds to learning. Those supporting the use of video analysis mooted various ideas.
The first was “video aids understanding”.
I can see how slow motion video of great players can increase our understanding of the functional anatomy of the golf swing. And I can appreciate this will help refine swing theory. But what I can’t see is how this helps the individual player. Although it might be helpful to see how each group of clubs should interact with the ball, you only need to record a few swings to do this.
This doesn’t explain the use of video in day-to-day teaching.
I was also told:
“Video can help with making changes – sometimes it can feel like you’re being asked to move the club a foot when in reality it’s less than an inch”.
Again, this seems reasonable at face value. But in reality, it’s never been something I’ve needed. I trust my coaches, so even if the movement feels strange at first I’ll persist…and the subsequent improvement in ball flight will do the rest.
I just can’t see why video is relevant. Yes it will tell you how your swing looks from where it the camera records it. But why do we think this will help? I’ve never had an out-of-body experience when swinging a club, so it’s unlikely I’ll get to have that view during my backswing. Life isn’t a video game – we can’t change our point of view at the touch of a button.
How something looks is a poor substitute for how it feels. It’s that kinesthetic/proprioceptive experience that helps us when we’re swinging a club. I’ve spent some time growing my awareness of my swing, and I’m starting to understand what I’m doing.
So I know what it feels like when I try to turn too far and throw the club off plane on the backswing; I can feel when I’ve rolled my arms shut on the down-swing as I move between my old and new method of hitting a draw (I used to swing in to out with a relatively weak grip and manipulate the club round. I now use a strong grip, but I still sometimes turn the club over leading to a pull/draw). With the aid of my coach, I’m making my swing as simple as possible; fewer moving parts means fewer errors.
In addition to that awareness, I know golf balls aren’t able to make decisions. They have no free will, no sense of direction, no burning desire to go and play with the ducks. They fly where they are “told” to go by the club face and to a lesser extent the swing path.
If we’re aware of our swings and able to interpret the ball’s flight, what can video add? And, if you’re wondering, video can’t replace awareness. Yes, it might be able to help with detecting the issue (although an experienced pro is able to do the same) but if we don’t know how the swing we’ve just made feels, how do we know we’ve changed it? We could use video every time we’re at the range – but we can’t take a camera out on the course.
Although several people were making the case for video analysis, they really didn’t offer much in the way of substance to change my mind. This may, of course, be a problem with the medium we used for this discussion.
Twitter’s 140 character limit aids brevity but can cause difficulties when trying to express a complex concept. Might I suggest any similar debates take place in the comments section? At present, I have to moderate your 1st comment, but later ones appear immediately. I’ll approve comments as quickly as possible, but work may cause a brief delay. Feel free to send me a message via Twitter (@The_Golf_Geek) if you want your comment approved!
So what do you think? Do you agree, or are you undecided? Do you feel like I’ve missed your point? Is there a case you want to make using more than 140 characters? Drop a comment in the box below and let me know!
10 Responses to “Revealed: The Unconvincing Case For Video Analysis”
Leave a Reply
Pick Up Your Prescription!
Want to know why you can't take your range game to the course?
Sign up for my newsletter to get practice tips delivered directly to your inbox & get my eBook "Why Almost All of Your Golf Practice is a Waste of Time...And How to Fix It" (worth £5.95/$9.95) ABSOLUTELY FREE. Yes, that's free.
Subscribe Now!
Protected bymy Spam-Free Guarantee; you can be assured I will never share your email address with anyone else
Connect With Me!
John Andreas said this in the Foreword to the book “frogs into Princes” )(Bandler and Grinder – 1979), talking about his journey into learning about a lot of different schools of therapy. “Actually, al methods work for some people and with some problems. Most methods claim much more than they can deliver and most theories have little relationship to the methods they describe.”
Different people learn differently – some people are aural, some visual, some tactile. Video does have a place, and while you are probably correct to say that depending solely on video to learn about your swing would be a mistake, dismissing it is also a mistake.
I cannot render an informed opinion since I have never been moved to try video analysis for my golf swing. Perhaps this is due to trusting my swing is not broken based on my ability to hit a fairly high percentage of good shots. Why would I tinker with my swing when it is proven to work? Yes, I do hit some miserable shots but, due to knowing the feel of a good shot, I am able to relate the result to the cause. Invariably, it relates to something I can consciously control but didn’t. Such as grip, alignment, posture, takeaway, or tempo. Alot of instruction and practice brought me to this point. Would video have helped? Or is video simply the current “shortcut to game improvement” hype? I am not so naive as to believe the equipment hype. And I am fortunately sufficiently skeptical of any swing improvement peddler. Plus, I don’t mind keeping things simple in an all too complex world.
I must confess I’m in the same boat as Mr Golf Ball; I really don’t see what video can add, and as my learning is progressing far faster than it has any right to, given the small amount of time I can devote to practice, I don’t see the need. Like Mr GB I’m proud to be “simple” – a much maligned and under-valued adjective.
Court, I didn’t set out to be dismissive; I explained why I don’t see the need for video, and why I’m dubious about its use. I invited comments, and then spent much of the day discussing things on Twitter.
This post arose because no-one said anything that was likely to change my mind. And this isn’t because I can’t let myself be wrong; it’s because no-one made a convincing argument for video analysis. Essentially the tenor of the discussion ran “Video analysis works because I’ve been using it and I believe it works”. That isn’t the level of argument that’s likely to get me to alter my considered opinion.
As I’ve said above, the lack of convincing argument might be due to Twitter’s 140 character limit. It’s probably not the best place for in-depth discussion. I mean what I said in the above piece – please feel free to debate the matter further here. I look forward to being made to think!
I totally disagree, i am golf teacher and i can tell you from my experience, and not only mine, that video can improve student perception and understanding, not only that, it also makes the new movements stick better. Seeing your swing in video for the first time is like hearing your voice for the first time in a tape redording, we are surprise with how we sound/look, why? becouse our senses are fallible, and that is precisely the point. i already now what my student is doing, but not only my student needs to know, i think he/she also needs to see it with his/hers own eyes, that is a fundamental of feedback.Feedback is not a one-size-fits all proposition, every individual is different, and that is another reasen for trying video. there is also scientific research on this issue that has proven that video can improve performance in high percente.
thank you for the post
jose
Jose,
Many thanks for your comment, and my apologies for the delayed reply.
I agree our senses are fallible. Our sight is also a sense, and is every bit as fallible as our other senses. Add to that the camera records from an entirely unreal position – it’s a view we would never have of ourselves, and as such adds another dimension for error. The feedback we get from video is significantly disconnected from what we actually experience, and verges on an irrelevance.
Yes, feel can be fallible. When my coach makes a change it feels wrong, but because I trust my coach I persevere. All we need to do is internalise that feeling. Our senses may be fallible (or our feel might not be real) but they are consistent. So I’m still not convinced by the argument.
With the phrase “scientific research” you make an interesting point and I’d be very interested to review those papers if you (or any other reader) have them. I’m used to reading and critiquing studies in my day job (medicine) and have designed one myself. As you can imagine, studies in medicine are carried out under carefully controlled conditions, and are reviewed several times (my study has been reviewed 3 times so far – when applying for funding and then ethical approval, and again at the time of submitting to a journal for publication). In spite of this, many studies often have flaws in their design meaning the results have to be interpreted with caution.
Although I’m sure the studies of video analysis have been carefully designed and undertaken, I’m also sure they won’t have been subjected to the same scrutiny as a medical trial. There are many things which could skew the results – the video analysis group could have contained more high or low handicap golfers, or the coaches could have spent more time with one group than the other. There may also be an issue with funding; what if these studies had been funded by a company which supplies the hardware for video analysis? I’m not suggesting they would fake the results…but they certainly wouldn’t publicise a study which showed no benefit. (Negative studies don’t tend to be reported anyway leading a significant publication bias). How do we know there weren’t 4 or 5 studies done which showed no benefit?
Aplogies, Jose, I don’t mean to dismiss your argument – I’m only seeking to explain why I haven’t been wholly convinced by the points you’ve raised. If you do have a copy of the studies, I’d love to go review them. I’m certainly open to changing my mind on this topic (at least about video analysis for some golfers; I’m pretty certain it won’t be valuable for me as I’m a “feel” learner) so if you know where I can get hold of the studies in question, let me know! My email is INFO@DrGolfGeek.com, or my Twitter address is @The_Golf_Geek.
Many thanks for your comment. Apologies again for the tardy response, but I really wanted to give your contribution the consideration it deserved!
Hope to see you again,
Dr Geek
I am a visual person and though I am starting to feel more and more of the club. I have found it by being able to see what I am doing and comparing it to what I am told I am doing. Sorry took so long to respond.
Allan,
I am in agreement with you here, I do not feel like I need to utilize video to improve my game. With that being said, I can’t say that it won’t help someone out there who is attempting to improve.
At the end of the day, regardless of what technique or technology you use, golf will always come down to being a game of “feel”, and I believe working on that feel and the feedback it gives a golfer is paramount to improvement.
Keep up the great work with the site, I find it to be not only informative, but also very humorous and entertaining.
Hi Rick and Brad – many thanks for your responses.
You may well be right. It certainly could be that it’s just not something I need or would find useful; I certainly wouldn’t want to belittle Rick’s experience. This post arose from the reaction to my original post, which explained why I won’t use video, and why I was dubious about video as a medium for learning the swing.
After my original post, I had to debate my position on Twitter. I found myself on the back foot and don’t feel those who argued against me provided any evidence beyond “it works because I say so” level. I also felt a couple of them didn’t debate with the level of courtesy I extended to them – one, a respected coach and broadcaster asked if I was “really unconvinced…or just disappointed my view wasn’t supported by anyone in the know?”. As you know, this simply isn’t the case. And everyone who was “in the know” seemed to give a different reason why video worked. The more they argued their case, the less convinced I became.
I made the point on Twitter that I’ve taught hundreds of people to walk after a devastating event like a stroke, yet I’ve never once used video to do this. Another golf coach responded “I think comparing walking to a complex motion like the golf swing is a bit of a stretch”. And he’s right – but not for the reason he thinks. Walking is far more complex a motion than swinging a club at a stationary ball. We don’t realise this because we learn to walk at such a young age, but it is (I recently saw a specialist golf physio for advice on stretches, and asked which was the more complex movement. She replied “walking”without a second’s hesitation).
As I’ve said above, my mind isn’t closed, I really am open to a persuasive argument. I just don’t feel such an argument has been forthcoming, hence this post. I’d wondered if this was due to Twitter’s 140 character limit, so wanted to give coaches who supported video analysis a chance to reply where they can give a full response..
I’m very grateful for Jose’s input, and would love to review the studies mentioned. I’ll post my reactions to the blog, so if anyone has details of these studies please get in touch via the contact form.
Many thanks to all who’ve commented on this post – I really love talking through my ideas as it’s the best way I know to develop my thinking, so feel free to keep this going!
hi,sorry for the delay.
Some of the studies about feedback have been done by dr.Mark Guadagnoli.
Regardless of these studies, i can talk from experience. I teach some people with video feedback and others without, it depends on the level of the player of course and how the learn.
I wouldn´t use it if it wouldn´t be useful.
jose
Jose, thanks for your reply.
I was never in any doubt you believed video worked – any golf professional reading and commenting on blog posts is clearly committed to their work and passionate about helping golfers improve. My problem is I’ve seen many eminent professionals in another field (medicine) maintain they know what treatment is best, only to discover this isn’t the case when new evidence comes to light. And I believe you see an effect with your students when you use video – but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s down to video. Might it be a placebo effect?
I’ve written another post to explore these ideas in more detail. I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Thanks again for taking the time to comment. I really appreciate it.
Allan