I was looking forward to hearing Brandel Chamblee speak at the Golf Magazine Annual Summit for “Top 100” Teachers and their guests, which was held in 2016. He had made a second career for himself on the Golf Channel criticizing other PGA Tour players, and in the process, making himself a polarizing figure. I found myself agreeing with him some of the time, and then other times, not so much.

What I had observed was that he was not one to back down, and he seemed to enjoy a “healthy discussion,” which often would turn heated. He was in these discussions a formidable opponent, being both intelligent and quick witted — a deadly combination when debating any issue. Brandel was at that time on the verge of launching his new book, “The Anatomy of Greatness.” He planned on sharing some of the conclusions that he had reached with the group that evening. What he must have known going in was that he was entering the lion’s den. And for that reason alone, Chamblee deserves a good deal of credit for accepting the invitation knowing that he’d be under fire for some of the remarks he had made in the past.

On my end, I did some research prior to his presentation, wanting to be prepared in the event that I had an opportunity to ask him a question. As a teacher, I was especially interested in what he might have said up to that point about the role of technology in learning and performance — and more specifically, his view on the use of TrackMan.

***

Golf Channel, May 12, 2015

I found a clip on the internet dated May 12, 2015. Chamblee was at the Golf Channel desk during the Players Championship sitting with Frank Nobilo and David Duval. The topic was TrackMan: the pros and cons of gathering information. The other two announcers, at least for the 2 minutes and six seconds of the clip, had given the floor to Chamblee. Brandel, an outspoken critic of technology, began by criticizing the inaccuracies found in TrackMan’s numbers, citing a series of reports that he had consulted:

• That the machine is incapable of finding the center of mass but rather locates the geometric center of the club, which is more toward the heel.
• The machine under-reports clubhead speed because the club is swinging on an arc, and as a consequence, over-reports smash factor.
• The machine will often register a smash factor above 1.50 when measuring a tour player, which is impossible because the highest achievable number is 1.49.
• The machine doesn’t accurately measure where the ball is impacted on the face of the club because of various spin factors.

He found these facts disturbing. The one issue that concerned him the most, however, was that early adopters could not transfer their TrackMan numbers from the range to the golf course. In other words, they had one swing on the driving range and another swing on the golf course. To Chamblee, that made the use of TrackMan to improve player performance “counter-productive.”

He had a final point to make. It was that teachers ultimately had to transfer the cost of this new and expensive technology on to their students in a time when the game was getting more and more expensive to play. This was of concern to him as well.                                                                        

***

That evening in 2016, Chamblee addressed some of the problems that in his opinion were associated with how TrackMan was being used. In this debate, there are two central issues:

1. How TrackMan is being utilized by teachers.
2. How Trackman is being utilized by players.

I listened closely to what he had to say, and on some of the issues we agreed. That said, I have my own concerns with regards to this debate. What I see happening is what I saw occur with the use of video many years ago, but on a smaller scale because of Trackman’s $20,000 price tag.

In the past, as the cost of cameras with slow-motion capability continued to drop from thousands of dollars to hundreds, they became more affordable. This made it possible for anyone to potentially become an expert. What evolved was that many run-of-the-mill teachers, using a video camera, would simply compare a student’s swing to a model and then point out the differences. This was without concern for the player’s individual biomechanics or if they were even physically capable of swinging in the prescribed manner.

For this reason, many top teachers have now either abandoned the use of video-analysis as part of their instruction or use it very little. They would prefer to spend their time connecting with their students on a more intimate one-on-one basis. This is the way that I now approach teaching after having worked with thousands of students over the past 45 years.

The nature of technology is that it will never take the place of human interaction between the teacher and his student. A central problem that is occurring in some quarters is that the machine is giving the lesson while the teacher simply reads off the numbers. This approach serves to undermine the establishment of a human connection between teacher and student.

In a Golf World article written by Matthew Rudy, dated April 19, 2017, he wrote that one of the common criticisms of modern instructors is that they’re helpless without information on a screen. I agree. I’m familiar with teachers who approach a lesson this way, caring only about the numbers without ever relating to the student.

Further, I have to agree with Hank Haney when he said in that same article “Information is great, and every teacher should be trying to get as much of it as possible. But that’s not the only piece.”

Randy Smith is of a similar opinion when talking about the use of TrackMan to coach a player: “Should a student want a sterile, perfect golf swing to work on in a room somewhere we can do that… but being efficient? Hitting different shots under different situations, different lies and pressure? That’s a different thing.”

Claude Harmon III who utilizes TrackMan on a limited basis was quoted in the same article with regards to younger players over dependence on the machine: “I have students come to me and quote their TrackMan combine numbers, and they can’t even tell me if they hit a fade or a draw. “

I’m not implying that TrackMan does not have a place in golf instruction or for use by players on a limited basis. As David Duval echoed at the very end of the Golf Channel clip, it should be used only “to check a few numbers.” As for teaching, what I am saying is that Trackman should be used only as a doctor would use an x-ray machine, which is to verify his diagnosis at times when he is unsure of the facts.

That said, is there a place for launch monitors?

Absolutely. They are invaluable, especially when it comes to driver fittings, where knowing the launch angle and the spin rate of the ball, is essential to maximizing distance through both carry and roll. And in terms of playing, knowing the carry distance of each club makes for more precise approach shots. But there are other launch monitors, aside from TrackMan, that can provide that same information at a much lesser cost.

The reality is that TrackMan is more than just a launch monitor, having the capability of providing detailed information about player performance—not just the ball. And for that reason, it’s easy for players to become obsessed with the numbers by seeking absolute perfection. They strive to, in TrackMan language, “zero-out” their swing. This is when the path and the face numbers are in perfect alignment with each other, both bracketed between the numbers +1 and -1. This state of being is considered by devotees to be the equivalent of finding the Holy Grail. The problem is that this type of perfectionism is not transferable to the course as noted earlier. And we know from our own experience as players that an attempt to be perfect can be a curse when it comes to this game, which at best is one of managed imperfection.

What can be concluded? I’m going to give Brandel the final word on this issue, as it was his name that ushered in the story. The opinion that he shared with Matthew Rudy, and I would like to share with you, was that he believed that modern players are both over analyzed and over coached.

“And as a consequence, they are not better for it, but they are worse,” Chamblee said.

My opinion? This time, I think Brandel got it right.