tongzilla
New
I think Tiger would be furious if you told him his success with his new swing is due to dumb luck.
Dumb Luck?
- Thread starter tongzilla
- Start date
- Status
I think Tiger would be furious if you told him his success with his new swing is due to dumb luck.
I would be furious if someone told me directly to my face or for that matter behind my back, in a nonjoking manner that I was overweight. Despite this, many would agree that they are speaking the truth.
Brian Manzella
Administrator
The quality of instruction on the tour is average at best.
You might ACCIDENTALLY pick a guy who's method and your current swing will merge into more money.
Or you could disappear————poof!
welshdentist
New
Is this why some teachers get "famous quick" for helping a particular player, then disappear as soon as they start working with others?
tongzilla
New
Well, my point is this. The REASON why Tiger can take something that's not best for him and make it work is because he works very hard to make it work. Hours on the range, many lost (and won!) tournaments, and hours of visualisation. This perserverence is called hard work, not dumb luck...maybe you can call it dumb work
Jim Kobylinski
Super Moderator
Only a golfer as great at Tiger could pull it off with even that much work. Try to take some other low level player and throw your method on them and tell them to work their ass off and let's see if they stay on tour
James Marshall (Hogan1953)
New member
Brian,
Do you think you've had a identifiable part to play in David Toms' success or has your contribution been no better than chance odds?
Do you think you've had a identifiable part to play in David Toms' success or has your contribution been no better than chance odds?
self-mastery
New
Well, my point is this. The REASON why Tiger can take something that's not best for him and make it work is because he works very hard to make it work. Hours on the range, many lost (and won!) tournaments, and hours of visualisation. This perserverence is called hard work, not dumb luck...maybe you can call it dumb work
I absolutely agree.
my only experience with tour teachers has been gary edwin and steve bann from australia. i think they are both outstanding teachers and have done very big things with some successful players. edwin has coached peter lonard and rod pampling while bann has coached stuart appleby, robert allenby, and taken kj choi from about world no 70 to where he is now. apart from choi these guys have worked with these teachers for many years and i don't think its a coincidence that they've all won on tour.
tiger walked past lonard hitting balls a few years ago and stopped for a while then said, i want to swing it like that. edwin's players have tended to be short solid guys so i'm not sure his principles would fit tiger very well. tiger is prone to dishing out big compliments though, i think he said anthony kim has the best swing he's ever seen.
tiger walked past lonard hitting balls a few years ago and stopped for a while then said, i want to swing it like that. edwin's players have tended to be short solid guys so i'm not sure his principles would fit tiger very well. tiger is prone to dishing out big compliments though, i think he said anthony kim has the best swing he's ever seen.
Brian Manzella
Administrator
Whoa Nellie!
Let's go back to the original questions:
Let me answer this question totally as a stand alone question:
In my teaching practice, the only way I am doing a "Re-Build," over an "adjust," is when the changes that HAVE TO BE MADE will not "fit" the current overall pattern.
I use to do it all the time, but I learned to tweak and adjust to slowly "renovate" a pattern.
On tour, a rebuild is needed LESS often than with amateurs, and often has had poor results.
The "Method" teachers on Tour will try for a rebuild every time, because—in general—that is what they are selling.
When I look at 100 players at a PGA TOUR event, I see maybe 5% that I would overhaul.
The second question was:
Here is a more thoughtful answer:
Is it quality of instruction that allows some to succeed while others suffer?
To me "quality" means knowing what and when to change. But with method teachers teaching everyone to do the same things, it becomes more of the quality of the method when a "reBuild" is being force on a swing. The better method will work on more. They WILL NEVER work on all, or even most.
It is the talent of the individual that allows some to succeed while others suffer?
If you have enough talent, you can make multiple patterns work. See Hogan, Nicklaus, Kite.
Is it just just dumb luck that allows some to succeed while others suffer?
Yes.
Some folks just accidentally pick the right method, and method teacher.
Sometime the student just doesn't do the thing the teacher is telling them to do that wouldn't work, doing a few that make it look like they have been "fixed" - See Tom Pernice. Sometimes the JUNK the teacher is teaching is superior to the JUNK the last teacher was teaching, and there is improvement.
His is due to talent, and the fact that Haney's method has lots of good things in it, most notably a really good pivot.
Most folks in golf RUN from the truth.
Just like the guy who teaches some crazy inside-out contact stayed away from the TrackMan portion of a seminar that would have proven his JUNK dead wrong.
The media can make you or break you.
What about Harmon's failure with Mickelson, Olazabal, and Leonard?
Hard work and PURE-D talent.
Very true.
See Sam Randolph.
Let's go back to the original questions:
Let me answer this question totally as a stand alone question:
In my teaching practice, the only way I am doing a "Re-Build," over an "adjust," is when the changes that HAVE TO BE MADE will not "fit" the current overall pattern.
I use to do it all the time, but I learned to tweak and adjust to slowly "renovate" a pattern.
On tour, a rebuild is needed LESS often than with amateurs, and often has had poor results.
The "Method" teachers on Tour will try for a rebuild every time, because—in general—that is what they are selling.
When I look at 100 players at a PGA TOUR event, I see maybe 5% that I would overhaul.
The second question was:
Here is a more thoughtful answer:
Is it quality of instruction that allows some to succeed while others suffer?
To me "quality" means knowing what and when to change. But with method teachers teaching everyone to do the same things, it becomes more of the quality of the method when a "reBuild" is being force on a swing. The better method will work on more. They WILL NEVER work on all, or even most.
It is the talent of the individual that allows some to succeed while others suffer?
If you have enough talent, you can make multiple patterns work. See Hogan, Nicklaus, Kite.
Is it just just dumb luck that allows some to succeed while others suffer?
Yes.
Some folks just accidentally pick the right method, and method teacher.
Sometime the student just doesn't do the thing the teacher is telling them to do that wouldn't work, doing a few that make it look like they have been "fixed" - See Tom Pernice. Sometimes the JUNK the teacher is teaching is superior to the JUNK the last teacher was teaching, and there is improvement.
His is due to talent, and the fact that Haney's method has lots of good things in it, most notably a really good pivot.
Most folks in golf RUN from the truth.
Just like the guy who teaches some crazy inside-out contact stayed away from the TrackMan portion of a seminar that would have proven his JUNK dead wrong.
The media can make you or break you.
What about Harmon's failure with Mickelson, Olazabal, and Leonard?
Well, my point is this. The REASON why Tiger can take something that's not best for him and make it work is because he works very hard to make it work. Hours on the range, many lost (and won!) tournaments, and hours of visualisation. This perserverence is called hard work, not dumb luck...maybe you can call it dumb work
Hard work and PURE-D talent.
Very true.
See Sam Randolph.
Brian Manzella
Administrator
Oops!
I accidentally missed responding to this one (thanks Chris Sturgess):
David success is mostly due to talent.
I have worked with him since 1987. I helped him a good bit when he was younger, but as time went on, some of the things I did with him then just weren't good fits for his pattern.
When we got together in 1997, after a two or three year hiatus, I had learned the basics of HIS pattern, and by then, even HE didn't do it anymore. So I taught it back to him.
He was very successful for six years after that, using that pattern and some good information and coaching from his other teacher.
In 2003, I had basically perfected the Never Hook Again pattern, having taught it to hundreds and hundred of people. I had also learned more about the swing—especially ball flight—when we started to work together again.
From that "Million Dollar Lesson" in 2003, to the work I did with him three weeks ago, I take a bit more credit.
All you have to do is look at the dates we got together and how he played after. The proof's in the record.
The point is I didn't get it right for a while with David. So I went and learned more, and fixed my mistakes.
I accidentally missed responding to this one (thanks Chris Sturgess):
David success is mostly due to talent.
I have worked with him since 1987. I helped him a good bit when he was younger, but as time went on, some of the things I did with him then just weren't good fits for his pattern.
When we got together in 1997, after a two or three year hiatus, I had learned the basics of HIS pattern, and by then, even HE didn't do it anymore. So I taught it back to him.
He was very successful for six years after that, using that pattern and some good information and coaching from his other teacher.
In 2003, I had basically perfected the Never Hook Again pattern, having taught it to hundreds and hundred of people. I had also learned more about the swing—especially ball flight—when we started to work together again.
From that "Million Dollar Lesson" in 2003, to the work I did with him three weeks ago, I take a bit more credit.
All you have to do is look at the dates we got together and how he played after. The proof's in the record.
The point is I didn't get it right for a while with David. So I went and learned more, and fixed my mistakes.
"Brian hasn't told me anything wrong for a long time now." —David Toms to former college roommate and LSU teammate Michael Finney
tongzilla
New
Brian is so honest...so true...and so good.
dashfan87
New
See this is why I like coming here, and I appreciate Brian for what he is (a good guy, good teacher) where some might get a diffrent feeling from him, like hes stuck up, and a know it all... What they are missing is hes brutaly honast with himself, and about his own mistakes.
He has a reason, to say he is better than most, and knows more than most, and its because of hard work, and any man on this planet would know the worth of hard work, and would fight to prove when respect is deserved. Thats all Brian is doing, and I respect that.
Its a miracle some of the people are still alowed to post on this forum too, which also shows what kind of man he is.
anyway, while most of us, including myself dont personaly know you, I do appreciate you for having this wonderful site, with a lot of free knowlege. Brian is a stand up guy, and deserves to hear it every once in a while.
Chris Sturgess
New member
So do you think you helped David Toms more than Leadbetter helped Faldo? Because if the proof's in the record Faldo won a bunch of majors after working with Leadbetter. And trust me, I don't think Leadbetter is that great of a teacher. I don't even care about a pissing match comparison between you and leadbetter, I'm just saying keep it unbiased with the dumb luck comments if you expect others to as well. Feel free to delete this post.
tongzilla
New
good question Chris. Can it be pure talent that Faldo won multiple majors after working with Leadbetter? I'm guessing it's the right poison at the right time.
Brian Manzella
Administrator
Obviously Leadbetter did a great job with Faldo.
As far a "dumb luck" goes in this example, maybe Faldo wins more without Leadbetter, maybe less.
Maybe Ballard teaches him better, maybe worse. Maybe Haney does a Sam Randolph with him, maybe he wins 15 majors.
Did Leadbetter do a better job with Faldo, then I have with David?
Who knows.
I did do a better job than Leadbetter with Papa John.
shortgamer
New
Thats by far my favorite story on here. Classic.... and actually means more to me than say two instructors with a pro. Like you've said and I believe, ANYBODY might help a pro but not Miss Fabersham.....
Last edited:
Kevin Shields
Super Moderator
Remember, it did take Lead 2 full years to help transform Faldo. Admittedly, he had said if a new "Faldo" came to him now he could do it in 6 months. So, he was very lucky to have someone with Faldo's perserverence. Because alot of guys would have bagged it after 6 months of no results.
James Marshall (Hogan1953)
New member
Brian,
Thanks for the answer. Another demonstration of your honesty and constant endeavour to improve. I would recommend to anyone reading Nassim Nicholas Taleb's books: "Fooled by Randomness" and "The Black Swan" which deal with how much of the success in the financial world and other areas of life can be attributed to randonmess. I don't claim to understand fully his arguments but I think some of it could be applied to teaching golf. Maybe Leo could help us out with this.
Yours,
James
Last edited:
Taleb's books are right on the money based on the work of Karl Popper. Popper said there were only two types of scientific "laws". Those proven to be incorrect and scientific laws yet to be proven incorrect. Success can often be nothing but dumb luck.
- Status