can you be a good teacher without TGM knowledge? i know many, many teachers and instructors who have no TGM knowledge and do a great job of helping their students. i have come across and equally large number of people who believe without TGM, the standing as a teacher immediately drops. just because other people dont use 'hinging', 'power accumulators', 'waist bend', 'pitch attitude' and 'pivot' does not make them a bad teacher. does it?
good without TGM?
- Thread starter pecky987
- Start date
- Status
tank
New
This is my take:
Just as you may be able to fix some car problems with in your own garage with a limited set of tools, a golf teacher may be able to fix some students with his limited knowledge.
Continuing with the analogy; I think the TGM trained teacher would be likened to the mechanic with a fully equipped garage, complete with hydraulic lift, a full set of diagnostic tools, and a library of technical manuals for every make of car. He is then better equipped to fix a larger variety of problems for a larger variety of cars/golfers.
Just as you may be able to fix some car problems with in your own garage with a limited set of tools, a golf teacher may be able to fix some students with his limited knowledge.
Continuing with the analogy; I think the TGM trained teacher would be likened to the mechanic with a fully equipped garage, complete with hydraulic lift, a full set of diagnostic tools, and a library of technical manuals for every make of car. He is then better equipped to fix a larger variety of problems for a larger variety of cars/golfers.
point taken, and a good one it is.
but, to continue with the analogy, imagine this mechanic with a fully equiped garage? well imagine another mechanic who has the exact same epuipment and tools, but has different names for each piece?
theres no industry standard in golf instruction. no definitive name for any section of the swing or any particular move. TGM has done a good job of making that happen, amongst all those involved with it. however, if another teacher, who has never come across TGM, uses different terminolgy, but still realise that not everyone has to do the same thing, and teaches different things to different peoples needds.
just because he doesnt use the phrase 'turned shoulder plane' doesnt mean he cant teach fgs!
tank
New
The knowledge displayed by a G.S.E.D. is what impresses me, not the terminology. In fact I think the terminology can be a negative. That's part of what makes Brian so good, he is able to demistify the terminology.
However, I get what you are saying. Hypothetically, If someone finds another way to learn what a G.S.E.D. knows, and is talented enough to teach it so that students can understand, then he is just as valuable.
However, I get what you are saying. Hypothetically, If someone finds another way to learn what a G.S.E.D. knows, and is talented enough to teach it so that students can understand, then he is just as valuable.
Brian Manzella
Administrator
What makes for a good teacher? ....and...how do you become one?
The "field" in the golf instruction "game" is incredably weak. All you have to do is visit a national teaching summit or seminar, and what you'll see—for the most part—is a celebration of mediocrity.
Why?Because they is no training program designed to do so, on any scale other than microscopic, anywhere in golf.
What about The Golfing Machine, LLC's Authorized Instructor Program?
They do a very good job of teaching people to understand and use the book. They do ZERO "How to Teach" training.
Does that training make you a good teacher, and as "pecky" asked, "Can you be a good teacher without TGM knowledge?"
Knowing The Golfing Machine helps you as a teacher in many ways. If you know the book, you ought to understand ball-flight, know how to classify swings somewhat, and have a feel for what will work with what. You also ought to know that there is no one way to swing.
The way I put it is this:
Tim Finney, Michael's brother, is the New Orleans Saints' team doctor. He has an undergraduate degree from LSU, a medical degree from LSU. With an interest in Sports Medicine and knee surgery especially, he moved to Salt Lake City for a couple of years and did a fellowship with a world-renown orthopedic doctor. He moved back to New Orleans, worked his way into the #1 Sports Orthopedic group in the State, and became knwn throughout the area as the guy to see, if you needed you knee operated on and you wanted the best. He has been the Saints team doctor for years now.
How did Tim get there?
Training, Talent, and experience.
His undergrad degree is like becoming a PGA Member. His medical degree, like becoming an Authorized instructor at the Master level. His fellowship the the Doctor in Utah, is like studying with a world-class teacher such as Ben Doyle for a couple of years.
Very, very few teachers are willing to do this.
But, doing it, like Tim did in his field, will not make you a great teacher (or Doctor).
You need talent and experience, and probably a pretty good amount of study and research.
So, you could know every page of every golf book ever written, including all 7 editions of The Golfing Machine, and not even be a good golf teacher.
Tim is a great surgeon, partly because he is very bright (beyond book smarts), and because he is very manually dexterious.
But, can you be good without knowing TGM?Sure.
I was a good teacher when I knew very little Golfing Machine. But, either you learn the good stuff in the book, or you better learn it from somewhere else, or you have very little chance of being great.
Can you give us the "Manzella version" of what makes for a "good" golf teacher, and a "great" golf teacher?
I'll do better than that.
The Brian Manzella Scale of "Real World/Live Lesson Giving" Golf Teachers.
POOR = Can't teach, Can't demonsrate, teaches bad information, doesn't relate to students, everyone who works with them gets worse.
FAIR= Every Day, run-of-the-mill, guy at the local course. Doesn't know any theory, doesn't want to. Can demostrate some. Can relate some. Some students get better.
GOOD= Knows some theory, has studied under someone who has a clue. Maybe has their own method. Can relate to 50%+ of their students. Has developed some good players from scratch. Can help Mrs. Fabersham get it in the air AND not mess up Nicklaus before he tees it up.
VERY GOOD = Very Good teacher. Knows multiple theories. Has some undersatnding of law. Can teach 75% of all players to improve without bastarizing. Often has just one basic appraoch for all, however.
GREAT = Great teacher. Knows a lot of theories by heart. Know some Golfing Machine or TGM-like info. Can relate to 99% of students and help 90% of them in MULTIPLE WAYS. Can get Mrs. Fabersahm to break 90 AND HELP a TOUR PLAYER go win today.
HALL-OF-FAME LEVEL = Knows just about every theory that ever came down the pike. Could teach them all by him/herself or along with the person who "wrote the book." Can relate to 99.9% of all students and can get them ALL to hit it better today without BASTARDIZING. Teaches multiple patterns and multiple ways. Usually good with Juniors of any age and could tell you why every teachers stuff works and why it doesn't. Can teach other poor teachers to teach well, and good teacher to teach better.
Are great putters born or made?
What about great golf teachers?
What about great golf teachers?
The "field" in the golf instruction "game" is incredably weak. All you have to do is visit a national teaching summit or seminar, and what you'll see—for the most part—is a celebration of mediocrity.
Why?
What about The Golfing Machine, LLC's Authorized Instructor Program?
They do a very good job of teaching people to understand and use the book. They do ZERO "How to Teach" training.
Does that training make you a good teacher, and as "pecky" asked, "Can you be a good teacher without TGM knowledge?"
The way I put it is this:
How did Tim get there?
Training, Talent, and experience.
His undergrad degree is like becoming a PGA Member. His medical degree, like becoming an Authorized instructor at the Master level. His fellowship the the Doctor in Utah, is like studying with a world-class teacher such as Ben Doyle for a couple of years.
Very, very few teachers are willing to do this.
But, doing it, like Tim did in his field, will not make you a great teacher (or Doctor).
You need talent and experience, and probably a pretty good amount of study and research.
So, you could know every page of every golf book ever written, including all 7 editions of The Golfing Machine, and not even be a good golf teacher.
Tim is a great surgeon, partly because he is very bright (beyond book smarts), and because he is very manually dexterious.
But, can you be good without knowing TGM?
I was a good teacher when I knew very little Golfing Machine. But, either you learn the good stuff in the book, or you better learn it from somewhere else, or you have very little chance of being great.
Can you give us the "Manzella version" of what makes for a "good" golf teacher, and a "great" golf teacher?
The Brian Manzella Scale of "Real World/Live Lesson Giving" Golf Teachers.
POOR = Can't teach, Can't demonsrate, teaches bad information, doesn't relate to students, everyone who works with them gets worse.
FAIR= Every Day, run-of-the-mill, guy at the local course. Doesn't know any theory, doesn't want to. Can demostrate some. Can relate some. Some students get better.
GOOD= Knows some theory, has studied under someone who has a clue. Maybe has their own method. Can relate to 50%+ of their students. Has developed some good players from scratch. Can help Mrs. Fabersham get it in the air AND not mess up Nicklaus before he tees it up.
VERY GOOD = Very Good teacher. Knows multiple theories. Has some undersatnding of law. Can teach 75% of all players to improve without bastarizing. Often has just one basic appraoch for all, however.
GREAT = Great teacher. Knows a lot of theories by heart. Know some Golfing Machine or TGM-like info. Can relate to 99% of students and help 90% of them in MULTIPLE WAYS. Can get Mrs. Fabersahm to break 90 AND HELP a TOUR PLAYER go win today.
HALL-OF-FAME LEVEL = Knows just about every theory that ever came down the pike. Could teach them all by him/herself or along with the person who "wrote the book." Can relate to 99.9% of all students and can get them ALL to hit it better today without BASTARDIZING. Teaches multiple patterns and multiple ways. Usually good with Juniors of any age and could tell you why every teachers stuff works and why it doesn't. Can teach other poor teachers to teach well, and good teacher to teach better.
It needs to be said that while this is likely theoretically true, I do not believe there are many such "equivalents" out there teaching.
im not saying you can be a good teacher if you dont know things the things perscribed in the golfing machine. YOU DO! just you dont need to find this out by reading a specific book. no doubt TGM can help imensly to become a good teacher.
the way i see it, if you can gather all the needed knowledge to help someone get better, then it doesnt matter where you get it from! its almost like what TGM means. you know what Homer said 'i dont care what you do, as long as you know how to do it!'. well it doesnt matter where you get the info, as long as you do!
the way i see it, if you can gather all the needed knowledge to help someone get better, then it doesnt matter where you get it from! its almost like what TGM means. you know what Homer said 'i dont care what you do, as long as you know how to do it!'. well it doesnt matter where you get the info, as long as you do!
Jared Willerson
Super Moderator
I think what is emphasized by TGM makes it great. I know I never paid much attention to lag or a flat left wrist until I started studying the info here and other sites.
I was always working on stuff that didn't matter like the rigid idea of posture espoused by the golf rags and "maintaining my spine angle" and lots of other stuff that doesn't matter a hill of beans.
With some knowledge of TGM I understand why all the stuff in the golf magazines could work and why a lot of times it doesn't....because most students aren't educated enough with their pivot and hands to make the info work.
I was always working on stuff that didn't matter like the rigid idea of posture espoused by the golf rags and "maintaining my spine angle" and lots of other stuff that doesn't matter a hill of beans.
With some knowledge of TGM I understand why all the stuff in the golf magazines could work and why a lot of times it doesn't....because most students aren't educated enough with their pivot and hands to make the info work.
I am still pretty sure this discussion is quite hypothetical. So without naming names, have you come across non-TGM instructors who have equivalent knowledge of a broad variey of stroke patterns (and who can thus improve students in variety of ways)? Not that I'm an expert in cataloging instructors, but in all of socal I bet there are no non-tgm types like this at all. The handful of good non-tgm instructors that I know of are one-pattern folks.
Last edited:
matt kluck
New
What about practical application? If you cannot do it in multiple derivations how can you teach it in those multiples? Remember, those who can do, do it, those who can do teach better!!!
Good luck to those of you who cannot do,
Matt Kluck
Good luck to those of you who cannot do,
Matt Kluck
again point taken, most teachers who arent TGM teachers, tend to be one-method folks.
however, i HAVE come across SOME very good teachers, who aren't name teachers in Top 100 or Top 50 and merely use personal experience and knowledge to realise there are options in the golf swing and different ways to get the job done
Last edited by a moderator:
Jim Kobylinski
Super Moderator
Some other teachers that i have met either personally or on the net that seem to know their stuff uses TGM type information however they figured it out on their own and have different terminology for it. Now they haven't figured it all out, but definately the core ideas.
TGM or Not
Interesting hypothetical for sure, and with no definitive answer. I'm no AI but have studied the book for 4 years or so now and have some understanding about the priniciples it puts forth. I'm a decent player (around scratch) and hit it better now as a result of the yellow book. After reading many many instructional books, the mags, etc, TGM was a refreshing (but complex) read that actually tried to apply the laws of physics and geometry to the golf swing. What a concept!!! It's pretty clear that you need to be a bit of a "hard-core" with lots of "want-to" if you're going to digest the book, especially if you're doing it on your own. Brian's site and others have made that task easier, but it still takes work.
My perception of instructors has changed since getting into TGM. Although there may be plenty of teachers out there with and without TGM backgrounds that get results, I won't go to a teacher who isn't an AI or who "rolls their eyes" when TGM comes up. Whether they use the "lingo" or not doesn't matter.... that they understand the principles does.
Robbo
Interesting hypothetical for sure, and with no definitive answer. I'm no AI but have studied the book for 4 years or so now and have some understanding about the priniciples it puts forth. I'm a decent player (around scratch) and hit it better now as a result of the yellow book. After reading many many instructional books, the mags, etc, TGM was a refreshing (but complex) read that actually tried to apply the laws of physics and geometry to the golf swing. What a concept!!! It's pretty clear that you need to be a bit of a "hard-core" with lots of "want-to" if you're going to digest the book, especially if you're doing it on your own. Brian's site and others have made that task easier, but it still takes work.
My perception of instructors has changed since getting into TGM. Although there may be plenty of teachers out there with and without TGM backgrounds that get results, I won't go to a teacher who isn't an AI or who "rolls their eyes" when TGM comes up. Whether they use the "lingo" or not doesn't matter.... that they understand the principles does.
Robbo
One small, but important point.....whether or not an instructor is TGM trained or not, if he can't communicate the principles of a good golf swing and how to achieve building a golf swing based on those principles to the student, then that teacher can't teach a lick and poor Mrs. Fabersham is still stuck not being able to so much as to hold the club correctly much less attempting to make a good pass at the ball.
This is what separates Brian from about 99% of all the instructors out there. He can communicate! He can take Mrs. Fabersham and make her better in one lesson and she will understand what and why whatever Brian is teaching her even though she may have never heard of TGM or even care.
Isn't that the object of teaching? Making one better.
I often think that the old club pro's, back before Leadbetter and company hit the golf world, were better overall instructor's than today's teaching pro's in many respects. This was primarily due to the fact that the old timer's had to learn how to convey the information that they had learned the hard way.
This is what separates Brian from about 99% of all the instructors out there. He can communicate! He can take Mrs. Fabersham and make her better in one lesson and she will understand what and why whatever Brian is teaching her even though she may have never heard of TGM or even care.
Isn't that the object of teaching? Making one better.
I often think that the old club pro's, back before Leadbetter and company hit the golf world, were better overall instructor's than today's teaching pro's in many respects. This was primarily due to the fact that the old timer's had to learn how to convey the information that they had learned the hard way.
Last edited:
David Alford
New
I agree, golf instruction in general is VERY weak. There are intelligent instructors here and there, but it's pretty spotty from what I've seen. At the present, I wouldn't recommend TGM or digging it out of the dirt as an optimal way to improve.
The best hope at present is to find one of those good instructors.
The best hope at present is to find one of those good instructors.
KOC
New
Our beloved B.Man got his first flight to see the MAN, Ben Doyle, GSED, the first A.I. of the Golfing Machine…I think most of you guys remember that story in the Confession of former flipper video…or reading here in TGM story.
What if B.Man did not discover the little yellow book and never see Ben Doyle?
What if B.Man did not discover the little yellow book and never see Ben Doyle?
Brian Manzella
Administrator
Brian Manzella
Administrator
FORUM RULES...
There are rules here that cause us to delete posts every now and then.
Rule #1. No promotion of methods, teachers, wanna-be teachers, or unproven or disproven junk—no matter how thinly or THICKLY veiled.
There are rules here that cause us to delete posts every now and then.
Rule #1. No promotion of methods, teachers, wanna-be teachers, or unproven or disproven junk—no matter how thinly or THICKLY veiled.
I think one of the big problems with the POP teachers is that they no longer teach the average player any möre.
The old club Pro had to know his stuff like Ben Doyle other wise he would have no lessons or even worse no job.
And when a very good player comes along it would be some kind of a bonus.
Teaching good players is much easeir than your average hacker, its a bit like Aston Martin v's Ford motor car.
The old club Pro had to know his stuff like Ben Doyle other wise he would have no lessons or even worse no job.
And when a very good player comes along it would be some kind of a bonus.
Teaching good players is much easeir than your average hacker, its a bit like Aston Martin v's Ford motor car.
- Status