Why a poor result initially tells us only that something happened – and why good golf coaching first looks for the cause before changing anything.
After a poor bunker shot, the explanation is often found very quickly.
The ball does not come out of the sand as planned, so the immediate thought is: there was not enough speed, not enough energy, or something was fundamentally wrong with the technique.
That is exactly what happened during one of our recent course weeks.
After his bunker shot, the golfer was convinced that he needed more speed.
At that point, we could simply have given him a technical correction.
Instead, we first looked more closely at what had actually happened.
A poor result does not mean everything was wrong
The analysis showed something interesting.
The depth at which the club travelled through the sand was basically appropriate for the task. The amount of energy used also appeared sufficient.
The actual problem was somewhere else: the club entered the sand too far behind the ball.
That changed the consequence for the next attempt as well.
We did not need to ask for more speed, change the movement and also correct the depth in the sand at the same time.
Several parts of the shot could remain exactly as they were. The likely relevant change was much smaller: moving the entry point closer to the ball.
With the same amount of energy, that could have produced a completely different result.
A poor result initially tells us only that something did not work as planned. It does not automatically tell us which part should be changed.
Find the cause first, then choose the intervention
In golf, a mistake can originate in many different places.
Sometimes it really is technique. The golfer may not yet be able to execute the planned shot reliably, the strike may be poor or the movement may not produce the intended ball flight.
In other situations, the problem begins earlier.
Perhaps the lie was misread. A hazard was not noticed. The golfer does not know their normal dispersion. The target or club does not fit the situation. An expectation is based on the perfect shot rather than the normal shot. Or emotions influence the decision.
That is why we distinguish between two questions: Where did the problem originate?
and: Does this problem actually require a technical change?
Those are not the same thing.
A good shot can still come from a poor decision
Another example from our on-course coaching shows the other side of the same logic.
On hole 13, a player decided to use a 5-iron to aim at a relatively small area between bunkers and woodland.
He hit the shot extremely well.
But the good result does not automatically mean that the decision beforehand was well supported. Target size, normal dispersion and the consequence of a miss still had to be judged independently of the outcome.
That is also what we work on in our Decision Quality in Golf: decision, execution and outcome are three different things.
A good shot can rescue a problematic decision.
A poor shot can, in turn, happen despite a good decision.
And sometimes technique is exactly the right answer
The opposite is equally important. During the same course week, another problem showed that technical information was indeed missing.
The golfer had already repeated the task many times, but uncertainty remained around the strike. Only a more detailed explanation of the relationship between ball contact, subsequent ground contact, shaft position and weight organisation gave him the information that had been missing.
Here, technical work was exactly the right intervention.
We simplified the task and started with shorter shots so that the new information could be understood and tested.
That is why our position is not: Technique is rarely the problem.
Instead: Technique should be changed when the analysis shows that technique is actually the relevant cause.
Analysing the cause of errors is part of the Golf Learning System
That is why we do not look at a golf shot in isolation.
In our Golf Learning System, we treat perception, information, expectation, decision-making, preparation, technical execution and subsequent evaluation as different areas in which errors can occur or influence one another.
In the Strategy Lab, it becomes particularly clear how perception, information, target selection, risk and decision-making can already influence the eventual result before the actual swing begins.
This does not mean that technique is less important.
On the contrary: the more accurately we identify the cause of an error, the more precisely we can decide when technical work is necessary and when a different intervention would be more appropriate.
Good coaching therefore does not mean responding to every poor result with another technical correction.
That does not mean undervaluing technique.
Quite the opposite: the more precisely we identify the cause of an error, the more specifically we can decide when technical work is necessary and when another intervention would make more sense.
Good coaching therefore does not mean responding to every poor result immediately with another correction.
It begins with a different question:
What actually happened here?
Only then can we decide what should be changed.
Monnard Widmer Coaching Insight
A poor result tells us that something happened. The analysis tells us what we should change.
