BLOG: The 2nd Biggest Lie Ever Told in Golf Instruction History - by Brian Manzella

[StevePratt]

"They don't take lessons because of the following reasons...

1. They know many folks who got worse taking lessons.

2. They took a lesson to fix their snap-hook, and the teacher changed EVERYTHING.

3. As a group, golf instructors are under-educated, under-trained, under-performing."

Brian - AMEN BRUTHA

As a full time teacher, I believe that if a teacher cannot guide any golfer to a significant measurable, observable difference in performance in one session, they aren't worth the money. If I couldn't get a hooker or slicer, etc. to go straight within 15 minutes I would feel ill and give them their money back for doing such a lousy teaching job.

In my humble opinion, if a teacher tells you that you need to practice a move or position for weeks or months and you aren't a tour player, you should run. Chances are that their methods are not grounded in physics or physiology and this is why they feel so awkward!

 

[Kevin Shields]

Purely playing devil's advocate, why would a super talented, got all day to work on it Tour pro need months while a below average amateur need 15 minutes all the time? If anything, it might be the other way around.

BTW, i do agree with the change in ballflight time, generally

 

[Jim Kobylinski]

Purely playing devil's advocate, why would a super talented, got all day to work on it Tour pro need months while a below average amateur need 15 minutes all the time? If anything, it might be the other way around.

BTW, i do agree with the change in ballflight time, generally

Because Golf has a very steep diminishing returns graph (for ability) which sucks

 

[birly-shirly]

Plus, aren't the tour pros' movement patterns much more deeply ingrained? And isn't that one of the reasons they're tour pros in the first place? (Not the only reason obviously).

It makes sense to me that glaring errors are easier and quicker to fix.

 

[Kevin Shields]

They are only ingrained in their head. Understanding + talent should make a swing change easy if its correct for said Tour player. Id you fully understand it you can trust it as well. Anything short of that is weak minded or the player just doesnt fully understand the change.

Like I said, im just playing devils advocate. I agree things shouldnt take as long as some tell you. But the combination of bad positions, lower end talent and low sports IQ could stunt progress. I dont think anyone can disagree with that.

 

[birly-shirly]

Kevin

I know what you're saying - although I'm not sure that I'd downplay the importance of problems that are "only" ingrained in the head. Lots of stuff in there that's hard to shift.

Also, one of the smartest things I think I've heard on here is the idea of "taking away the reward" (for a fault). Doesn't that become harder to do for a tour pro who can still salvage good, if not great, shots from less than ideal positions?

I think part of the problem is knowing what happens in "tour level" teaching. You're better placed than I am to answer that. But what do you think is Matt Killen really teaching KP, or Dave Pelz to Mickelson? For that matter, where do you draw the line between teaching and coaching at that level?

What I do know is that I spent one season learning to snowboard. I never got particularly good, but I made a big improvement with every lesson. On the other hand, I've got years' background in music and must have logged thousands of hours in practice and hundreds in lessons. It would be a rare lesson in which I came out feeling that I was already a better player. I'd have learned something, for sure. But improvement would come slowly, with lots of work.

If, instead of "progress" you'd said "achievement" - I'd have no difficulty agreeing. But "progress" to me seems more like a relative term - relative to where the student started.

 

[jaridyard]

They are only ingrained in their head. Understanding + talent should make a swing change easy if its correct for said Tour player. Id you fully understand it you can trust it as well. Anything short of that is weak minded or the player just doesnt fully understand the change.

Like I said, im just playing devils advocate. I agree things shouldnt take as long as some tell you. But the combination of bad positions, lower end talent and low sports IQ could stunt progress. I dont think anyone can disagree with that.

The 'myelin model' would disagree but more importantly as you have also said it is trust. In my experience (take it for what you will) trust on the range and trust under elite tournament pressure is not only about understanding it but positive experience borne out of this knowledge.

 

[domo]

The 'myelin model' would disagree but more importantly as you have also said it is trust. In my experience (take it for what you will) trust on the range and trust under elite tournament pressure is not only about understanding it but positive experience borne out of this knowledge.

JR,
Took the words right off my keyboard. I am reading "The Talent Code" by Coyle right now.
15 minute permanent fixes are a little tough to swallow based on the findings discussed in this book.

 

[Brian Manzella]

What a joke.

JR,
Took the words right off my keyboard. I am reading "The Talent Code" by Coyle right now.
15 minute permanent fixes are a little tough to swallow based on the findings discussed in this book.

So you have this guy, he has taken lessons before, and he is a stone cold slicer....


Didn't this thread start with that?


BTW, the guy posts on here, has only taken one lesson, and is PERMANENTLY better.


Just ask him.

100's more just like him.


GEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

 

[jaridyard]

My post was really with reference to tour players and their trusting process, completely different for a stone cold slicer. Sorry if it was off topic.

 

[Kevin Shields]

Birly, I dont think we're comparing a lifetime tour player's gains with a minor tweak with a stone slicer getting blown up by Manzella. Apples to oranges.

I still see everyone's points though.

My point is that ive been doing one thing my entire life in my swing and based on my full understanding of a piece of info given by one of "our scientists", I was able to completey shift my pattern and get a total change on video and in ballflight and use it in a (albeit meaningless) round. Ive tried similar things without the understanding, only because it was suggested to me, and the results were awful. It takes understanding to change a motor skill before it takes a million reps.

 

[domo]

So you have this guy, he has taken lessons before, and he is a stone cold slicer....


Didn't this thread start with that?


BTW, the guy posts on here, has only taken one lesson, and is PERMANENTLY better.


Just ask him.

100's more just like him.


GEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

Brian,
Not doubting you changed him. Not saying it can't happen. Not saying you haven't had that success before. We know you have. But based on the informaton presented in the book, it really isn't the 15 minute lesson that fixes him permanently, it's that he has learned what he must do to change the swing to not slice and that he has put the time and effort in to practice correctly. Should have been more clear with my statement. That said, there are many who have that initial success and can fall back into old "habits" and get derailed when practising alone. Then they need a tune up and rediscover how to practice correctly again. It has as much to do with the student as it does the teacher providing the correct information (according to the model).

 

[wulsy]

My point is that ive been doing one thing my entire life in my swing and based on my full understanding of a piece of info given by one of "our scientists", I was able to completey shift my pattern and get a total change on video and in ballflight and use it in a (albeit meaningless) round. Ive tried similar things without the understanding, only because it was suggested to me, and the results were awful. It takes understanding to change a motor skill before it takes a million reps.

Couldn't agree more, I've had exactly the same experience with my own game AND with my stundents. Understanding is the prerequisite. Repetition is just fine tuning what you can already do. You can't do something you don't understand (unless you are a genius eg John Daly), and you won't do something that doesn't work because its wrong, even if you are convinced it's right.

 

[bax1865]

The Dirty Dozen

Within a dozen swings any Instructor worth being paid should be able to:
1. Spot the players dominate tendency (Good and Bad)
2. Have some type of "Game Plan" to begin with
3. Be able to explain and demonstrate the "Game Plan"
4. Re-evaluate to see if the student is understanding and applying
5. Begin to see some change in motion toward "good"
6. Educate, Reinforce, Encourage, Challenge the student to improve.

I for one would love to have a "live teach off" against Brian. I think it would be great.....win or lose, because even if I didn't win I would have learned how to be better at what I want to be the best at.

 

[Jim Kobylinski]

1. Spot the players dominate tendency (Good and Bad) Nope, you should be identifying the ROOT CAUSE which many don't do and why golfers never really get "better." They fix the result and not the root and thus you and them have no chance.

2. Have some type of "Game Plan" to begin with agreed

3. Be able to explain and demonstrate the "Game Plan" disagree, too many words and showing them doesn't necessarily help. get them to do what you say (they are paying you so most don't say no) and when the results get much better they will basically WHATEVER you tell them do.

4. Re-evaluate to see if the student is understanding and applying agreed, should be after every ball.

5. Begin to see some change in motion toward "good" agreed, should be able to do that within 10 balls. now i'm not saying total good, but good enough that the STUDENT says "wow that's different."

6. Educate, Reinforce, Encourage, Challenge the student to improve.mixed answer for me, while i understand this premise i find too few students want to be educated (no matter how much they say they do), and few want to challenge themselves to get THAT much better. Most people want quick fixes to beat their buddies in their weekly game. Now i'm not saying everyone is like that but most are which is why you need to attack the root cause of a problem, blow it up with something completely opposite of what they do, and then leave them with the knowledge (enough) to repeat it on their own. HOWEVER i'm not opposed to the long time student who truly wants to learn and really challenge themselves.

 

[bax1865]

1. Spot the players dominate tendency (Good and Bad) Nope, you should be identifying the ROOT CAUSE which many don't do and why golfers never really get "better." They fix the result and not the root and thus you and them have no chance.

Yup.....Identifying the Root Cause IS what creates the players dominate tendency. The players athletic ability or lack there of will be in the back my mind as I plan my attack to correct them.

2. Have some type of "Game Plan" to begin with agreed

3. Be able to explain and demonstrate the "Game Plan" disagree, too many words and showing them doesn't necessarily help. get them to do what you say (they are paying you so most don't say no) and when the results get much better they will basically WHATEVER you tell them do..

The level of player that is in front of you make a difference on the "Demonstration" I would use. When teaching raw beginners, it is absolutley necessary to "demonstrate" what you are trying to explain to them. I teach some players that the first time they have touch a club was when I handed one to them. Now if I were to be instructing a Tour player, the need to demonstrate would not be as necessary. Teaching is not a "Cookie Cutter" endevour, it is an art, which is why Methods are not 1 size fits all and limited in their usefullness. There is also the fact that people learn in different methods. I fellow PGA Professional had a great way of finding out what type of learning a student may be by asking them this question. At Christmas time when you are putting together, say a bike, do you read the instructions, sorting out and labeling all the pieces before you proceed? Do you just look at the picture on the box and try to build it by studying the picture or do you just wing it and end up with extra pieces? The answer they give will give you some insite into how they process information.

4. Re-evaluate to see if the student is understanding and applying agreed, should be after every ball.

5. Begin to see some change in motion toward "good" agreed, should be able to do that within 10 balls. now i'm not saying total good, but good enough that the STUDENT says "wow that's different."

If the swing I am trying to get them to make doesn't feel almost radically different then they are not making enough of an adjustment. "Ask for a mile hoping for an inch"
Stop laughing and get your mind back on topic! But you know what I mean.

6. Educate, Reinforce, Encourage, Challenge the student to improve.mixed answer for me, while i understand this premise i find too few students want to be educated (no matter how much they say they do), and few want to challenge themselves to get THAT much better. Most people want quick fixes to beat their buddies in their weekly game. Now i'm not saying everyone is like that but most are which is why you need to attack the root cause of a problem, blow it up with something completely opposite of what they do, and then leave them with the knowledge (enough) to repeat it on their own. HOWEVER i'm not opposed to the long time student who truly wants to learn and really challenge themselves.

Jim, my responses to your responses are within your quote above with the exception of the one below. Whew! I need a nap now!

They need to know what I want them to do and why it needs to be done for them to get better. If I leave and they look confused then I haven't explained myself correctly. My bad and shame on me. This doesn't happen when they leave with more knowledge. Doesn't the explaination of the "D Plane" help some of your students to figure it out even when you are not casting your shadow upon them? That is what I mean by educating. They can take it with them and play golf on there own without me as their "binky" .

 

[bill*d]

In general, Brian's original supposition is right. The golf swing is not that complicated and not that difficult to "learn". In fact, I daresay that every person who reads this already knows how to swing a golf club in the way that best suits them. You just don't believe it, and traditional golf instruction sets it's foundation squarely upon that lack of faith - we are eager to buy-in to almost anything except our own ability.

 

[bax1865]

I hear a wick being lit........................BOOM!

 

[chipingguru]

A lesson can produce one of three things. 1. Improvement 2. Get worse 3. Stay the same.

In the overall universe of golf teaching, 2 & 3 are far more likely. Reality has a much harsher verdict than subjectivity.

 

[StevePratt]

Yes good question. Why would a 'got all day' tour pro need more than 15 minutes? He could absolutely pick up the general shape and pattern of a new motion. I would imagine that the more talented athletes on tour would pick it up in 2 or 3 trials. But a tour player's subconscious motor program is so much more ingrained than the average golfer. Furthermore, it is the program they trust the most under the gun, whereas the average golfer trusts different ideas from day to day, or hole to hole. Most average golfers may not have anything deeply ingrained.