From the desk of Marty Irvine, and the mind of a Kool-Aid salesman.

[Brian Manzella]

Martee:

"Brian, this is the problem I have with 'everyone and TGM'. If you going to teach TGM or are you using TGM to teach a golfer? I believe you are the latter from what I read, saw and heard.

If someone asks to be taught TGM that IMO is different that someone asking to be taught a golf stroke.

TGM offers two patterns, if one was to teach purely TGM, then I would expect that is what is taught. Now why a golfer would want to learn one or both of them other than to learn TGM, I don't know why. Most golfers show up with something to begin with and junking all of the that to start from scratch seems wrong. An instructor learning both of them, learning the various variations of the components and learning how to integrate them may be an exercise that is worth while, but that IMO doesn't mean the insturctor teaches one or both of them to every golfer who shows up to the tee.

I just really see that there are two patterns, that have been identified as TGM without adjustments ( no compensations).

TGM is very clear that it is 'your golf storke' and that there are quadrillions of golf strokes that can be identified in the TGM catalog, but only two patterns that have been identified as uncompensated.

I will appologize in advance if the following is incorrect, but when I am asked about what Brian Manzella teaches, is it TGM, I respond say no he doesn't teach TGM, the Instruction is based on TGM but he will teach you how to swing better, not a particular stroke pattern or how he swings."
__________________
Good Golfing
Martee

 

[Brian Manzella]

"Brian, this is the problem I have with 'everyone and TGM'. If you going to teach TGM or are you using TGM to teach a golfer? I believe you are the latter from what I read, saw and heard.

If someone asks to be taught TGM that IMO is different that someone asking to be taught a golf stroke.

TGM offers two patterns, if one was to teach purely TGM, then I would expect that is what is taught. Now why a golfer would want to learn one or both of them other than to learn TGM, I don't know why. Most golfers show up with something to begin with and junking all of the that to start from scratch seems wrong. An instructor learning both of them, learning the various variations of the components and learning how to integrate them may be an exercise that is worth while, but that IMO doesn't mean the insturctor teaches one or both of them to every golfer who shows up to the tee.

I just really see that there are two patterns, that have been identified as TGM without adjustments ( no compensations).

TGM is very clear that it is 'your golf storke' and that there are quadrillions of golf strokes that can be identified in the TGM catalog, but only two patterns that have been identified as uncompensated.

I will appologize in advance if the following is incorrect, but when I am asked about what Brian Manzella teaches, is it TGM, I respond say no he doesn't teach TGM, the Instruction is based on TGM but he will teach you how to swing better, not a particular stroke pattern or how he swings."

You are exactly wrong.

As a matter of fact, I read your post to Joe Daniels, who OWNS THE GOLFING MACHINE and he agrees 100% with me.

You—and plenty of others—have been sold a 'bill of goods,' and according to someone like you who drank the Kool-Aid, that bill of goods is BLOODLINE.

"I am the only person who teaching the book as Homer wished." Or something like that.

I cry BS.

The "Book" is an explanation of golf, it is NOT a how-to book. Homer says it 1000 different ways in the books and the audio.

For example, WHICH TWO PATTERNS IN WHICH EDITION OF THE BOOK???

You see, they are in a box and they built it themselves.

The Patterns have changed any they are crying foul.

I am laughing.

But I feel REALLY sorry for you, you have never seen me teach live.

 

[Jared Willerson]

I hope you understand that was not Brian saying that but other teachers, who one day, would like to have a chapter named after them.....i.e. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

 

[mrodock]

Oh wow, completely misunderstood, deleted and apology logged. Thanks glcoach, appreciate it!

 

[birdie_man]

I agree Brian.

....this stuff ain't communism.....

For example, WHICH TWO PATTERNS IN WHICH EDITION OF THE BOOK???

You see, they are in a box and they built it themselves.

The Patterns have changed any they are crying foul.

I am laughing.

Ah I get it..........that went over my head a few times before....7th edition means......12-1-0 and 12-2-0 are different.....so the swings some ppl have been teaching exclusively for years are now all of a sudden different.....I guess there's gonna be accusations about the notes validity and all that etc. etc. etc....but it wouldn't matter in the first place if you taught more than 2 patterns lol...

....I gotta get that 7th still...

 

[Brian Manzella]

I edited to make that clear.

I would never say that.

But there are those who would, and do.

Martee, I really am sorry, TGM is not just two patterns.

 

[Jim Kobylinski]

That is quite possibly the dumbest thing I have ever seen Martee write.

Maybe he was just not feeling well. Brian doesn't teach TGM? HA! That's a good one.

 

[Brian Manzella]

Oh, and NOT just the Stallion...

But,

Ben Doyle

Gregg McHatton

etc

etc

 

[tongzilla]

Ok, BUT...

As far as I know, Ben Doyle teaches one pattern ONLY to EVERYONE, that being the Four Barrels Maximum Participation Swinging Pattern. If Brian dislikes teachers who do that so much, why does he love Ben?

I remember Brian one said, "because Ben feels like if he doesn't teach it then no one will...".

Fair enough. But you can also use the same argument with those who teach the Basic Patterns (12-1/2) only in the 6th edition.

 

[Brian Manzella]

A good question, Leo.

"Yeah, Ben Doyle is a 'one-pattern' teacher too, so why do you have a problem with the Kool-Aid stand?"

Maybe lots of folks have a question something like that, and I—as always—have the answer.

Ben Doyle loves The Golfing Machine, and he loves golf. He has been ripped off by more teachers than anyone who ever lived, but he still gives of himself everyday.

He does prefer one pattern, the "Maximum Participation" pattern, which was featured in the 3rd Edition of The Golfing Machine. Ben teaches it almost eactly as is, except he likes a square stance.

He READILY ADMITS he tries to incorporate this pattern into all students, but, he will "settle for less." But, Leo, Ben's teaching really ISN'T all about this pattern, it IS ABOUT the Essence of G.O.L.F.: "Your mind in your hands correctly-your eyes on the ball correctly-and the pivot does all the work."

He NEVER claims to be the ONLY teacher teaching TGM "correctly," even though he feels like he probably—in his heart—IS. He NEVER made anyone else who is an Authorized Instructor feel like he thought himself to be anything but a teacher who uses The Golfing Machine to help people play better golf.

Ben disagrees with a few items in the book, and he finds this a NO REAL problem with carrying the book with him everywhere, and reading it everyday.

He also probably loves the 7th edition, but wishes other patterns had been included.

But, along comes a couple of guys who have NEVER SPENT anytime really learning to TEACH golf, who said—independently and then together and then independently—that THEY have all the answers and THEY are 'doing it right' and everyone else is wrong.

A little sidebar here—when I say "really learning to TEACH golf," this is what I mean. Let's take a young assistant pro. He was a decent player, got in the golf business, and was sent to the tee to teach "Mrs. Fabersham."

At some clubs, if he stinks at teaching, he might not give another lesson for a few weeks, and then he has to improve or it will be another couple of weeks. If he wants to be booked pretty solid, he needs to work HARD on all the things that a REAL TEACHER posseses: A Large Amount of Core Knowledge, A Larger Amount of Applied Knowledge, ENDLESS DIFFERENT explanations to fit the situation, Superior Communication Skills, empathy, humor, etc. etc. If he improves, his book starts to fill. If he does this over a long period, he is booked solid and can charge more for his services.

But at some clubs, or some courses, or some teaching situations, there is SO MUCH SUPPLY that anyone would be booked fairly solid.

You would be surprised at how many teachers have never had the opportunity to LEARN TO TEACH in the PERFECT situations that I learned in.

For the first 20 YEARS of my teaching career, I was always at a driving range where there were other teachers who wanted me to fail and quit (at best). I had next to NO SUPPLY. I had to learn to teach. And I did.

For guys like Ben, Gregg McHatton, Mike Finney and countless others, this "up from the ranks" teaching development happened. They had NO BUSINESS, and then they got better and they were booked solid. They charged more and they were still booked solid.

Lots of guys THINK they came up through the ranks, but THHEY ALWAYS HAD A SUPPLY. These guys often have a good deal of "core knowledge," but can't really teach as well as their press clippings say they can.

The two fellows who showed up on the scene to tell the rest of the AI's "what they were doing wrong," never came up through any ranks and never had to develop a business by OUT TEACHING anyone.

This in itself is no crime, but their "I am right and you are wrong" attitude IS. Like an old man once told me, "Don't laugh if you can't do better." They can't.

The Kool-aid stand was giving this moniker because those guys are selling the idea that IF YOU DO THIS EXACTLY LIKE I AM TELING YOU TO, THE KINGDOM OF GOLF IS YOURS.

What I see when I teach golfers who have "drank from the pitcher with the smiley face," is they are teaching some VERY UNORTHODOX procedures and telling those who will listen that THIS IS IT, THIS IS The Golfing Machine, and everything else and everybody else is not "teaching TGM."

Nothing could be further from the truth, and here is a news flash: IT SURE DON'T WORK FOR EVERYBODY.

Just re-read Martee's post. He went to the "stand," drank the juice and has never worked with me. But "He knows...."

He knows NOTHING!

I, Brian Manzella, teach The Golfing Machine. So does Ben, and Gregg and Mike, and Tom, etc. Everyone does who understands the imperatives and the relationships. The book is a tool and needs to be used as a tool. It IS NOT A HOW-TO book.

This spin from the Kool-Aid-ers is that the reason TGM is where it was before they showed up, was becuase TGM was "taught incorrectly."

Nope.

TGM wasn't being taught in a way that ALL OF GOLF COULD EMBRACE IT. This "ALL IN" message is MY MESSAGE. And it OTHER'S messages as well.

All patterns are in the book.

All the guys on TV on TOUR have the Three Imperatives.

Etc.

The stuff they are teaching is VERY LIMITING. If you did it exactly as they say, you would look quite a bit "non-golf-like."

But this is just my opinion.

They can teach whatever they want.

They do a good job.

They are helping golf.

But, don't tell ME what I can teach—or should teach—and hide behind a book. That book IS WHAT I TEACH.

It is NOT, however, HOW I TEACH.

I get my student to perform the three imperatives with a pattern that is customized for them by me.

My students golf swings look SO MUCH MORE LIKE WHAT YOU HAVE SEEN OUT OF THE GREAT CHAMPIONS over the last 80-odd years, then their product, it is really no-contest.

Just ask the guys who have been to both.

What the Kool-Aid stand "puts in the water" is fine with me. But when a guy—an AI— like Martee says that if you don't teach the two patterns in the six edition, then you don't teach TGM, I get quite a bit upset.

When those guys have changed the flavor of the Kool-Aid, I'll still be way ahead of 'em, beacuse I realize WHAT THE BOOK IS REALLY ALL ABOUT:

Finding A WAY to help a golfer play their best.

Not The Way.

 

[Martee]

Wow! I guess I hit a real hot button and pissed you off Brian.

Went back and re-read my post. Maybe it could have been better written but I think you are focused on a few statements and you seem to not have them in context.

IMO, if you teach TGM, you are teaching someone to be an AI. Yes you could use Chapter 12, the curriculum as the approach used, this could be said that is the TGM Approach or Course to the golf stroke. That curriculum appears to track with the two sample patterns.

Regarding Sample Patterns, which ones you ask as a reference to which version of TGM, well one could ask which imperatives do you teach, since I believe there have been as many four or five imperatives (might be more but I don't have access to all the books right now).

Homer as I understood it advocated that the most current version of TGM is what should be used, cause that is the one which has been refined the most. I got this 2nd, 3rd and probably 4th hand so take it at what that is worth. It made sense to me, though as some have said that some versions seem to have information that unfortunately found the cutting floor for one reason or another.

My point is simple, Insturctors don't teach TGM. They teach golf instruction based on TGM. They don't teach 'The Way', but as you said it the teach 'Your Way'. It is clear in what I said and you said that you DONT teach "The Way".

It doesn't make sense to me to state that you teach TGM, cause you don't. You use what is in TGM along with your understanding, experience, and analysis to teach golfers 'their golf stroke'.

To say Joe say's I am off base, well he either didn't understand what I was saying (could be my poor wording, etc.) or he has changed and this contrary to Homer's TGM.

Homer was clear he expected the AI to use the book as a catalog, go out and build on it, hone your insturctor skills, not teach golfers 'The Way'. I don't know how clearer I can say that.

Get rid of chapter 12 and then this conversation goes away.

The "Book" is an explanation of golf, it is NOT a how-to book. Homer says it 1000 different ways in the books and the audio.

Regarding a 'System', Homer does advocate the 'Star System Triad' both for beginners and experienced players. Wasn't it the 6th version where Homer offered the Curriculum -- The How Too some might say??? Homer indicated that it could be used as a cirricullum for a basic certificate course but a MUST with all other G.O.L.F. curricullums.

I still stand by my statement,

Brian Manzella doesn't teach TGM, Brian Manzella teaches the golf stroke based on TGM and it is not a cookie cutter storke, it is that golfer's stroke. That is what my understanding what Homer thought an AI would and should do.

IMO if you teach TGM, you are teaching someone to be an AI, not a golfer. And at that it is just the starting point for an instructor, not the completion.

The koolaide, I'm a gatoraide fan, .....

 

[Brian Manzella]

Glad you like GatorAid, Marty.

Thanks for your clarification, Martee.

You are correct, maybe close to 100% correct.

A few years ago, real close to 100% correct.

But today, there are those who claim to be a direct link to Homer and teaching the REAL TGM.

I say BS!

If Homer saw me teach, he'd LOVE IT.

Here is the deal:

If someone claims to be THE TGMer, he'd better be, or I'll bust 'em until he says uncle.

The Golfing Machine family, of which I am a member (and so are you Marty), could REALLY benifit from all AI's and former AI's admitting that, as far as the book goes—unless we are teaching throwaway an a bent plane line—we are ALL EQUAL.

The difference would be who can get their students to perform the imperatives the best.

Then all the Mac O'Grady's with their funny acronyms and strange patterns, and all the Kool-Aiders with the funny high hands at address and the super-strong grips, are ALL WELCOME AT THE TABLE.

Just not at the HEAD of the table.

Shouldn't it ALL be about who can TEACH THE BEST?

 

[Martee]

Shouldn't it ALL be about who can TEACH THE BEST?

I think TGM should be about getting instructors to teach sound golf instruction.

Whose the best, that I think goes beyond TGM because IMO knowing TGM inside out doesn't guarantee you to be the best teacher. Teaching is so much more that just have superb golfing knowledge, it is being able to communicate that to the golfer in a fashion that the golfer will be able to understand (varying extent) and then execute. Lets face it at the end of the day what matters is how the golfer executes.

Who Teaches the Best, I think that is a subjective call, we really don't have qualified measurements. I think the 'Top Instructor List' bears that out. Some of those names up their probably haven't given a real lesson and had success to joe duffer in years, they are too busy marketing themselves and dropping names of who they have taught that is winning on the PGA tour. Sorry for the rant.

For me I want an instructor who can make my game better, not tell me about the time he and someone else had a great time. But then I have a very selfish view and realize not all instructors are created equal or that one instructor fits all (its more about communications, etc., if they have the knowledge).

 

[Brian Manzella]

I think TGM should be about getting instructors to teach sound golf instruction.

Whose the best, that I think goes beyond TGM because IMO knowing TGM inside out doesn't guarantee you to be the best teacher. Teaching is so much more that just have superb golfing knowledge, it is being able to communicate that to the golfer in a fashion that the golfer will be able to understand (varying extent) and then execute. Lets face it at the end of the day what matters is how the golfer executes.

Who Teaches the Best, I think that is a subjective call, we really don't have qualified measurements. I think the 'Top Instructor List' bears that out. Some of those names up their probably haven't given a real lesson and had success to joe duffer in years, they are too busy marketing themselves and dropping names of who they have taught that is winning on the PGA tour. Sorry for the rant.

For me I want an instructor who can make my game better, not tell me about the time he and someone else had a great time. But then I have a very selfish view and realize not all instructors are created equal or that one instructor fits all (its more about communications, etc., if they have the knowledge).

Hall of Fame post Martee, except for one little item.

The TEACHING BUSINESS should be about figuring out who gets the results, why they get the results and HOW they get the results.

Then everyone can study them. learn and improve on what they do.

Then GOLF would be better for all.

No?

 

[rundmc]

Hall of Fame post Martee, except for one little item.

The TEACHING BUSINESS should be about figuring out who gets the results, why they get the results and HOW they get the results.

Then everyone can study them. learn and improve on what they do.

Then GOLF would be better for all.

No?

Very good point and to add a bit . . . we should also study how good players and players who have made significant improvements LEARN not only how they are TAUGHT. IMO it is more of a learning issue than a teaching issue . . .

 

[birdie_man]

I agree Jam Master Jay.

 

[tongzilla]

Except...

The TEACHING BUSINESS should be about figuring out who gets the results, why they get the results and HOW they get the results.

Then everyone can study them. learn and improve on what they do.

Then GOLF would be better for all.

No?

Except for those elite few who are getting well above average results already.

If everyone can get above average results, you are no longer special.

 

[Brian Manzella]

Who?

Name three of these people, Leo.

 

[tongzilla]

Name three of these people, Leo.

Brian Manzella, Michael Finney, Tom Bartlett.

 

[Brian Manzella]

Keep going...

Name seven more for a Leo top 10.

Or a whole new Leo top 10.