Why different lies, distances, green shapes and ground reactions can call for different solutions – and why not every golfer needs the same amount of variation.
In the short game, there is rarely only one possible solution.
Of course, a golfer can learn to handle many situations with the same club. Especially for less experienced golfers, this can make a lot of sense. A familiar standard solution initially reduces complexity and provides confidence.
As the golfer develops, however, the task begins to change.
It then becomes interesting to recognise that the same situation might be solved with a high shot, a low shot or something in between, and that one of those options may provide more room for the golfer’s normal error than another.
More variation is not always better. It becomes useful when it helps the golfer adapt to different situations and find ways to reduce risk.
That was exactly what we explored during a lesson with two golfers who had been playing for roughly the same amount of time, but who did not bring exactly the same abilities and experiences to the task.
Two golfers, two different depths of learning
The male golfer had already played a little more and was technically slightly further developed. There was probably another factor as well: he works in road construction. Slopes, changes in elevation and the way surfaces and gradients influence movement are part of his everyday work.
That does not automatically make him a better golfer. But some of the information he sees on a green may be easier for him to understand or interpret.
The female golfer was still less developed in some areas. With her, the aim was therefore not to keep insisting that she use a different club. If she can become functional with a familiar solution, that already has real value.
My job as a golf coach is to give both golfers the right depth of learning experience.
With one golfer I can offer more options to compare. With the other, I can use questions and individual examples to begin opening their eyes to the fact that different solutions are available in the first place.
The coaching goal is therefore not to give both golfers exactly the same task. It is to give each golfer a task from which they can continue to learn.
What solutions can you see?
One of our first situations was around 30 metres short of the green. The flag was positioned near the front.
I could simply have said: Take the pitching wedge, land the ball there and play this shot.
Instead, the task began with a question:
What solutions can you see?
A high option was possible. So was a low one. A medium-height solution looked less attractive because the likely landing area would have been right around the transition onto the green.
With the higher option, the next question came immediately: Where would the ball have to land for that solution to work?
Quite close to the front of the green. And what happens if the ball does not release from there? The golfer may be left with another chip straight away.
That made the lower option interesting.
First, a 7-iron. The ball ran slightly too far. Then a 9-iron.
The landing points were approximately where we expected them to be. But something interesting happened: the dry, closely cut Kikuyu grass slowed the balls much more than we expected. Both stopped short of the green.
That was not a bad coaching moment. Quite the opposite.
The environment had given us new information.
A solution can appear perfectly plausible on paper. Only the real ball tells us whether our expectation actually fits the conditions in front of us.
When an obstacle becomes part of the solution
In another situation, the flag was positioned on a higher tier. The obvious solution would have been a higher shot with a sand wedge. Then came another question:
Can we use the slope between the two levels of the green to slow the ball down for us?
Suddenly, the slope was no longer simply a problem. The idea was for the ball to land on the lower level, run up and over the slope and lose speed in the process.
With the 9-iron, the flight was too low and the ball ran too far. The pitching wedge worked considerably better. Well-executed PW shots finished close to the target.
For me, the interesting part was not the change of club itself. The golfer had started to see a feature of the green not only as an obstacle, but as something that could actually help him.
Changes in perception like this are an important part of learning.
The solution changes with distance, lie and target
We then continued to change the tasks.
Sometimes the balls were around 20 metres short of the green, sometimes 15 metres and sometimes only five. The flag positions changed. In one situation a sand wedge looked attractive, in another a pitching wedge, a 9-iron or even an 8-iron. The aim was not to learn a list of which club is “correct” from which distance. We wanted to compare.
Which solution requires the bigger swing? Which gives us a larger usable target area? Which ball flight reacts more favourably from this lie? And which solution can this particular golfer execute with enough control today?
It became especially interesting when the golfer wanted to investigate the reaction of the Kikuyu grass himself. He had even experimented with low shots during the lunch break because its strong braking effect had caught his attention.
So in the next task the question became: What might happen if we use a club with less loft?
He came to the idea himself that an 8-iron would create a shallower landing angle and might therefore react differently when the ball reached the grass.
This is exactly the kind of thinking we want to develop.
Not: “The 9-iron is my chipping club.”
But: “What could I change to make my solution work better in this situation?”
A different lie can even change the task of the shot
After several of these tasks, I asked a hypothetical question: What if the same balls were not being played from the fairway, but from semi-rough?
The golfers’ answer was interesting.
Perhaps not only the shot would have to change. Maybe the target itself would have to change as well.
The flag would no longer automatically be the most important target. Simply getting the ball safely onto the green might already represent a very good solution.
Distance and flag position are not the only factors that determine the solution. The lie can change the entire task of the shot.
A solution should leave room for the golfer’s normal error
On another green, we came across a situation similar to one we had experienced two days earlier. Once again, the actual target was on a higher tier. Once again, a slope in the green could be used. The male golfer initially chose the 9-iron, while the female golfer was again more inclined towards the sand wedge.
Now another piece of information became important: the dispersion of the landing point.
With the 9-iron, the ball had to land relatively precisely near the front edge of the green. But what happens if normal dispersion sends the ball two or three metres farther?
With a slightly more lofted pitching wedge, we could move the intended landing area farther onto the green. The slope could then take some of the speed out of the ball.
This solution provided more room for error.
This connects with an idea that repeatedly appears in our work with real on-course situations and specialised shots: a solution should not only work when the golfer produces the perfect shot.
Then the transfer became visible
At the end of the coaching sequence, we played a chip onto a green with several distinct areas and noticeable slopes. The ball first had to land on the green, run across or through the first level and then travel over a slope towards the flag below.
This time, the task did not begin with a club.
First, the golfers described the green: the different levels, slopes, gradients, possible ball reactions and areas we might be able to use.
Then something happened that I had been waiting for.
Both golfers recognised a similar situation that we had played two days earlier on the same green from a different position.
The female golfer chose the sand wedge.
Together, we defined more than just a landing point. What also mattered was the speed at which the ball should reach the slope, so that the green itself could then do part of the work and move the ball towards the flag.
She executed the shot very well.
The ball finished right next to the flag.
The enjoyment was obvious.
For me, however, something else was even more important:
At the beginning we had asked: “What solutions can you see?” By the end, the golfers had started to recognise similar solutions for themselves.
Connecting this to the Golf Learning System
This is where different areas of our Golf Learning System begin to connect.
Technical skills remain important. But golfers also need to learn to recognise relevant information, see different solutions, compare clubs and ball flights, judge landing areas, account for ground reaction and realistically include their current abilities in the decision.
For less developed golfers, a reliable standard solution may initially be exactly what they need. As the golfer develops, we can expand the tasks and introduce more variation.
This creates two important opportunities: the golfer can adapt more effectively to changing conditions and, when several functional solutions are available, choose the one that offers less risk in that particular situation.
What Ecological Dynamics has to do with this
Behind coaching situations like these is a learning idea described in movement science through concepts including Ecological Dynamics and the Constraints-Led Approach.
Put simply, a golf shot is not learned in isolation from its surroundings. The golfer is always trying to solve a particular task under a particular set of conditions.
In the short game, that might mean this: the flag is in a particular position. The ball is sitting on a particular surface. The green rises or falls. A slope may help slow the ball down. The golfer has different clubs available and may be able to control some ball flights better than others.
All of this information leads to one question: Which solution works for this golfer in this particular situation?
In simple terms, a functional solution therefore emerges from the interaction between the golfer, the task and the environment.
If only one part of that relationship changes – for example the distance, lie, ground conditions, flag position, shape of the green or the golfer’s current abilities – a different solution may become more appropriate.
That is exactly what we experienced repeatedly during this lesson. The same club could work well in one situation and become less suitable only a few minutes later. A slope in the green could initially appear to be a problem and later become part of the solution. And a different lie could even change whether the flag was still the most sensible target.
The Constraints-Led Approach uses changes like these deliberately in practice. Instead of always repeating the same shot under the same conditions, tasks can be changed so that the golfer has to notice information, explore solutions and adjust decisions according to how the ball reacts.
This does not mean that every golfer should be asked to play as many different variations as possible. For a less developed golfer, a reliable standard solution may initially be exactly right. A more developed golfer may be ready for greater variation and for comparing different solutions.
Source: Distance and Slope Constraints: Adaptation and Variability in Golf Putting. The study examines how experienced golfers adapt their movement to different distances and to an additional slope condition. The authors show that changing task conditions can produce different adaptations and discuss practical applications for variable practice conditions.
Ecological Dynamics has not suddenly reinvented the way we coach. We have been working with many of these ideas for years through questions, changing tasks, observation and allowing golfers to explore solutions for themselves. The research does, however, give us an additional theoretical framework and more precise language for explaining why learning experiences like these can be valuable.
Monnard Widmer Coaching Insight
Good golf coaching does not simply give golfers more answers. It helps them see better information and use it to develop functional solutions for themselves.
