How I Had to Unlearn the Golf Swing

And Why Working With AI Helped Me Get Closer to the Truth

For most of my career, I thought I understood the golf swing.

I had taught tens of thousands of golfers.
I had built systems that worked.
I had refined mechanics, positions, and progressions over decades.

And yet, something kept bothering me.

The best swings—the truly effortless ones—never quite matched the explanations we gave for them.

They looked rotational, but didn’t feel rotational.
They produced enormous speed, but felt strangely calm.
They repeated under pressure, yet players often couldn’t explain what they were doing.

At some point, I had to admit something uncomfortable:

I was teaching things that worked — but I wasn’t fully explaining why they worked.

That’s where this story begins.

The Problem With Golf Instruction Isn’t a Lack of Knowledge

Golf instruction has never been short on ideas.

We have:

• positions
• checkpoints
• models
• swing planes
• release patterns
• sequencing theories
• countless drills
  

What we don’t have is agreement.

If you’ve ever gone down the golf instruction rabbit hole, you’ve seen it:

• one instructor says “rotate harder”
• another says “stay passive”
• one teaches an active release
• another says “hold angles”
• one emphasizes hands
• another bans them entirely
  

Everyone has data.
Everyone has examples.
Everyone has success stories.

So why does it still feel so confusing?

Because humans are very good at defending explanations—especially ones they’ve invested their lives in.

The Hidden Enemy: Attachment to Explanation

This is the part nobody likes to talk about.

As instructors, we don’t just teach golf swings.
We teach stories about golf swings.

And once you’ve told a story long enough—especially one that works—it becomes very hard to question it honestly.

You stop asking:

• Is this the cause, or just something that happens alongside the cause?
• Am I teaching the engine, or the exhaust note?
• Would this still make sense if I removed everything I already believe?
  

That’s where I found myself.

I wasn’t wrong—but I wasn’t done.

Enter AI — Not as a Replacement, but as a Constraint

Let me be very clear about something:

AI did not “invent” a new golf swing.
AI did not replace coaching.
AI did not teach me golf.

What it did do was something far more valuable.

It removed my ability to rationalize bad explanations.

AI doesn’t care:

• how long I’ve taught something
• how well it sells
• how elegant it sounds
• how many people agree with it
  

It only cares about cause and effect.

When I started working deeply with AI to analyze swings, patterns, and language, something interesting happened.

Every time I leaned on an explanation that sounded right but didn’t hold up causally, it fell apart.

Not emotionally.
Logically.

That forced a different kind of thinking.

A Simple Question Changed Everything

The question that kept coming back was this:

If rotation creates speed…
why does speed disappear when golfers try to rotate harder?

That question alone dismantles a huge percentage of traditional instruction.

Then came others:

• If the release is something you do, why do great swings feel like no release happened?
• If arms are passive, why do they still move so fast?
• If positions matter most, why do elite swings look so different but feel so similar?
• Why does effort almost always correlate with inconsistency?
  

These aren’t philosophical questions.
They’re causal ones.

And they demand uncomfortable answers.

What I Slowly Discovered Instead

Over time, as explanations were stripped away, a much simpler truth remained:

The golf swing is not a rotation problem.
It’s a force and containment problem.

Speed doesn’t come from turning.
It comes from how force is loaded, resisted, and then released.

Rotation isn’t something you add.
It’s what happens when force has nowhere else to go.

This wasn’t a theory we started with.
It was what remained after everything else failed to explain the outcome.

From Teaching Moves to Teaching Conditions

This realization forced a complete shift.

Instead of asking:

• “What should the golfer do?”
  

I started asking:

• “What conditions must exist for the swing to happen on its own?”
  

That led me away from:

• positions
• angles
• conscious sequencing
• “start the downswing” instructions
  

And toward:

• ground force
• opposition
• containment
• delayed release
  

In other words:
teaching the system, not the parts.

The GOAT Load Pattern™

Eventually, one pattern kept showing up in every truly great swing—regardless of style.

I call it the GOAT Load Pattern:

Grounded • Opposed • Anchored • Triggered

At a high level:

• Speed starts from the ground.
• That force must be briefly resisted, not immediately turned into motion.
• Energy is contained, not spent early.
• When the system is loaded correctly, motion emerges.
  

The most important implication?

There is no active downswing.

Elite golfers don’t start the downswing.
They allow it.

When the system is loaded correctly, the release happens to you.

Many golfers describe this the same way:

“It felt like I didn’t do anything… and the club just ripped through.”

That’s not mystical.
That’s physics.

“There Is No Spoon”

At a certain level, golfers start using strange language:

• “It happened on its own.”
• “I couldn’t try to do that.”
• “If I think about it, it disappears.”
  

That’s not confusion.
That’s clarity.

It simply means:

There was nothing left to do.

The system was loaded.
Intervention would only interfere.

What This Means for Golfers

This approach changes everything about how you learn.

• Effort becomes a warning sign, not a virtue.
• Struggle usually means force leaked earlier.
• You stop chasing positions and start chasing sensations.
• Improvement becomes simpler, not more complicated.
  

Most importantly, you stop blaming yourself for inconsistency when the system itself was never properly loaded.

What This Means for AI — and Why I’m Not Afraid of It

There’s a lot of fear around AI right now, much of it very justified.

But here’s what this experience taught me:

AI doesn’t replace expertise.
It exposes weak explanations.

It doesn’t take away judgment.
It demands better judgment.

Used correctly, AI doesn’t make instruction generic.
It makes it honest.

Put another way that I recently heard: "AI is not artificial intelligence. It's an intelligence amplifier."

It is only as good as the questions you ask it and that is why the results one gets from AI are entirely dependent on the user: bad input = bad output.

AI used in the way I have to distill the GOAT's swing to it's true essence is acting like a mirror of my thoughts for the past 35 years of studying swing mechanics.

It forces me to be fully objective and get rid of my own personal biases.

It forces us all to separate:

• what we see
• from what we assume
• from what actually causes the result

That’s not threatening.
That’s overdue.

This Isn’t the Final Word

I don’t believe this is the “one true swing.”
I don’t believe instruction is finished evolving.

But I do believe this is the most causally honest model I’ve encountered in decades of teaching.

And I believe golf instruction gets better—not when we add more ideas—but when we’re brave enough to remove the wrong ones that we have clung to.

If you experience this and it feels easier than you expect, trust that.

If it feels like the downswing disappeared, that’s not a bug - that IS the feature.

That’s the point.