Work it both ways... or don't

[DriverBreaker]

So Lou Stagner asked for help with a research project he's conducting.  He wants people to hit on a launch monitor using good quality golf balls where you try to hit your stock shot shape vs opposite shape.

The test goes like this and you track carry distance, total distance, yds offline, and did the shot curve in the intended shape:

1) Hit stock shot shape

2) Hit 30yd pitch shot

3) Hit opposite shot shape

4) Repeat for 10 shots each shape over 3 different sessions (3 separate days, not all at the same time).

I participated in the project because I'm always down for research and testing.  I may even replicate with my students and publish in an academic journal.  I hit TaylorMade TP5X balls on a Trackman 3e using a metallic dot to help capture spin indoors. 

My results were as follows:

From my sessions, I found that yards offline differed significantly (p < .01); Cohen's d = .70, with stock shot being more accurate (M = 18.5yds offline vs M = 32yds offline) than non-stock shape.  Significant differences existed for ball curving in intended shape as well (p < .05), with stock shot curving as intended 25/30 times and non-stock shot curving as intended 18/30 times. 

So the moral of this case study, for me, is basically just hit the stock shot shape.  Less chance of double cross and accuracy is better.

I'm sure that when he puts out the results from all of the participants it will follow a similar theme. 

What do you do on the course?  Hit the stock shot or work it both ways?

Here is an interesting video from Rory and DJ on the topic:  

 

[alfriday101]

I would be interested in how practicing the opposite shot affects the results of you sock shot over time.  I think it was Adam Young who has players drill hitting a stock shot, a draw and then a fade to a target.  According to him, it was one of the fastest was to improve the stock shot results—or at least much more effective than just hitting stock shot after stock shot.  

[DriverBreaker]

2 hours ago, alfriday101 said:

I would be interested in how practicing the opposite shot affects the results of you sock shot over time.  I think it was Adam Young who has players drill hitting a stock shot, a draw and then a fade to a target.  According to him, it was one of the fastest was to improve the stock shot results—or at least much more effective than just hitting stock shot after stock shot.  

Yeah it's one of the great debates:  differential (aka random) vs block practice.  I know in my teaching if I've got a player who has a club path that is let's say -10 degrees (slice path), I'll have them exaggerate and feel a path that is +6.  We combine that with body rotation and the negative path reduces by half if not more every time.

As long as the stock shot is functional (not a 70yd banana slice/hook), then probably a good idea to drill it over and over.  If it isn't functional, perhaps exaggerate a different move until it becomes the new normal.  At the end of the day, I do believe in a pragmatic approach.  Do what gives the best results for each golfer. 

[THEZIPR23]

On 11/7/2021 at 7:39 AM, GolfSpy_CS said:

So Lou Stagner asked for help with a research project he's conducting.  He wants people to hit on a launch monitor using good quality golf balls where you try to hit your stock shot shape vs opposite shape.

The test goes like this and you track carry distance, total distance, yds offline, and did the shot curve in the intended shape:

1) Hit stock shot shape

2) Hit 30yd pitch shot

3) Hit opposite shot shape

4) Repeat for 10 shots each shape over 3 different sessions (3 separate days, not all at the same time).

I participated in the project because I'm always down for research and testing.  I may even replicate with my students and publish in an academic journal.  I hit TaylorMade TP5X balls on a Trackman 3e using a metallic dot to help capture spin indoors. 

My results were as follows:

From my sessions, I found that yards offline differed significantly (p < .01); Cohen's d = .70, with stock shot being more accurate (M = 18.5yds offline vs M = 32yds offline) than non-stock shape.  Significant differences existed for ball curving in intended shape as well (p < .05), with stock shot curving as intended 25/30 times and non-stock shot curving as intended 18/30 times. 

So the moral of this case study, for me, is basically just hit the stock shot shape.  Less chance of double cross and accuracy is better.

I'm sure that when he puts out the results from all of the participants it will follow a similar theme. 

What do you do on the course?  Hit the stock shot or work it both ways?

Here is an interesting video from Rory and DJ on the topic:  

 

I am participating in Lou's study as well, although I haven't done mine yet, will do this week. Not sure your results are surprising as I feel mine will be similar. Having the ability to hit a shot the opposite is a necessary evil however I believe that it should only be done out of force rather than the norm. Would imagine this study exemplifies that point. 

 

On 11/7/2021 at 9:17 AM, alfriday101 said:

I would be interested in how practicing the opposite shot affects the results of you sock shot over time.  I think it was Adam Young who has players drill hitting a stock shot, a draw and then a fade to a target.  According to him, it was one of the fastest was to improve the stock shot results—or at least much more effective than just hitting stock shot after stock shot.  

I will practice hitting it the opposite direction occasionally, especially if the stock shot is getting sideways. I use it more for finding the middle again than anything else. On the course it is all stock as much as possible.