I’ve played quite a few sports growing up, and am recently trying to learn golf. There’s quite a bit of technique involved in a golf swing and then I got thinking “how do we know this is the right/most efficient way to swing?”. Same thing for a hockey slapshot, diving, etc. Who comes up with the “proper” technique and why is it standardized? Does it come the best performers, and then everyone mimics (like the famous high jump technique)?
In: 10
> how do we know this is the right/most efficient way to swing
We don’t. What we do know is that this current technique has certain positives and negatives. If you are a strong players, maybe this technique better suits you. If you have longer arms, maybe another technique is better. It’s trial and error.
Granted, there are some techniques that do seem to be ideal. The Fosbury flop is a good example of a technique that has been widely accepted as the optimal one (as far as I know). The answer as to why is entirely dependent on the sport, but again comes down to trial and error. If 100 high-jumpers scissor kick jump, and 100 high-jumpers of similar characteristics Fosbury flop, the best technique is the one where there are better results. Is it the best? We don’t know, but it appears to be the *better* one.
A shit ton of science goes into technique and efficiency. Top athletes are measured, filmed, and poked and prodded to see if they’re efficient in their technique and if there are ways to improve performance.
Trial and error over generations.
In 1960 the NFL field goal kickers had a success rate of 50% Back then almost every kicker was kicking straight toed. By 1990 every NFL team had a soccer style kicker. The average success range was 75%. Now there are several reasons for success rates and average success range in field goal kicking, but most would agree the introduction of soccer style kicking was the biggest development in field goal kicking for accuracy.
This goes for any sport. Hell, if tomorrow you coached volleyball and you thought of a brand new technique for a serve and it made your team’s serve way more successful, other teams would integrate it into their strategy. If enough teams do this then it just kind of becomes the way of doing things.
[Kinesiology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinesiology) is the study of movement, and these scientists have studied the techniques of successful athletes to identify what is it about their form which made them so effective.
So it’s not that someone just arbitrarily decided that a particular form is, a-priori, superior, rather, they looked at the outcome of competitions, and tried to identify what worked the best.
Then, after applying what they learn to models of human anatomy and muscular movement, they have gone on to try and help talented athletes improve their technique, to get even better results. But this isn’t always a succcess, and “bad form” isn’t bad if you’re consistent. Larry Bird had a very unconventional shot form, but he was a *sniper*.
[Archery coach](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4IL0laJkpzH9JHmxNqjjMg) here.
The basic principle is that the human body only works in specific ways. There are nuances and individual variations, but most of our physiology is fundamentally the same. Through practical experience, people have long understood and passed down the techniques that work best. In modern times, sports science has identified specific muscle groups and motions that are more efficient and effective.
In archery, for example, improper technique puts a lot of strain on the shoulders, leading to soft tissue injury. The misalignment of the arms (“chicken winging”) create a break in the “line”, which leads to lateral movement in the arrow when shot, so we teach archers to bring their elbows back behind their head. This then pushes the weight of the draw to the stronger back muscles rather than in the smaller muscles in the arms. All this combines to create a technique that is more consistent with less fatigue. When taught properly, new archers are surprised that effective form feels “easier”.
Technique isn’t set in stone, however. Advances in sports science and analysis of performance and injury will reveal shifts in training. Some sports are prone to specific injuries that people accept as part of the sport, but study of these cases may prompt coaches to think different about how they teach athletes.
Sometimes, yes, it does take someone to be innovative, or push the rules. The high jump “Fosbury flop” is an example of that, but it didn’t happen in isolation. It was only viable when the field was set up with a soft mattress, whereas previously the scissor jump was more popular because it made the jumper land on their feet. The flop method is universally understood to bring the body over the bar most naturally by following the arch of the back.
However again, this depends on the specific goal of the sport. Many “sub-optimal” methods are used on a practical basis because the sporting goal is so far removed from the original application. The Fosbury flop would be ridiculous outside of the high jump event, just as modern archery wouldn’t work well for a medieval longbow.
specific to golf, i’ve been playing 25 years and in that time the “best” way to swing has changed many times.
I’ve been playing golf for a loooong time and have studied swing mechanics for a little less than that. Golf is funny in that there isn’t really a “right” way to swing, at least in terms of mechanics. Look at the pros, all of them swing it differently. If you take a snapshot of two swings and put them side by side they’d probably look wildly different. So it’s less about finding and objectively “right” swing and more about finding a swing repeatable swing that will send the ball where you want.
You can study the techniques of professional players to see how they achieve certain results (ex long hitters using the ground to generate power) and try to work that into your swing, but that doesn’t mean it’s objectively “right” it’s just proven to work at the highest levels of competition. And whether it works for you is a completely different story, too.
The thing about sports is that it always evolves. Techniques that were the thing 20 years ago are now seen as not viable. Someone tries something new, it works out, then others also try. It’s “right” because it’s been tested against other methods. In 20 years the techniques we have will similarity be outdated.
Let’s look at combat sports. Prior to heavy gloves, boxers would aim more at the torso since punching someone’s face with your knuckles would destroy said knuckles. Then once gloves became widespread you see a lot more hits to the head. Additionally, over time the jab became more prominent as it allowed boxers to find range and set up punches due to changes in stance and where their arms were positioned.
Additionally changes to tastes and rules can drive technique. Like look at fencing. In the 1980s and 1990s epee was seen as the defensive only weapon, where people would sit around and wait for the other person to go for a touch. Now it’s much more aggressive in terms of footwork and timing.
So basically, everyone is trying to experiment to get one up over the other guy, and what makes technique “right” is determined by how much you win within the rule set.
In the case of swings – individual parts of your body can only move so fast. So to maximize swing speed, you try to compound as many slower motions as you can together to achieve maximum speed.
We have basically solved the aspect of human motion. There are some tweaks to golf to make sure you have the proper face angle on the club and the proper low point in a swing – qnd with baseball to make sure you deliver the barrel to the pitch location. But otherwise they are just sequentially rotating for maximum speed.
The best I can reason, it’s a lot like so many other disciplines in life. There are some people on the leading edge who experiment, try new ideas & new things. Some of which fails, some of which catches on. And the rest of us learn from them.
Latest Answers