No Contest.

[slash]

Many strong words in this post!

At the end of the day, it is all about the student and whether or not they have improved. I've never advertised in my entire 17 years of teaching and I am one of the 5 busiest Teachers in Canada. Do the research, understand the root problem and FIX IT. If the student does not change right away, switch tracks with one of a million drills. It is NOT rocket science.

"Why guess when you can measure" Great words to live by with Trackman, Flightscope, Casio, K-Vest, etc. Quantifying the improvement in your student can be measured in real-time so teachers who do not embrace this technology are not necessarily getting the whole picture.


My opinion is many teachers are
A) not knowledgeable enough (give them a chance to learn something on this site and it will educate them)
B) too lazy to improve themselves because the poor golfing public does not know better and many will still shell out the bucks
C) not passionate enough about the privelage of HELPING people enjoy this fabulous game - Sitting with Brian at last year's AMF conference, you could see the passion oozing out! He is a man who embodies the energy, knowledge and commitment needed by a top instructor.

I find it pointless to constantly trash other people's opinions on swing theory. As Bruce Lee did with his fighting style Jeet Kune Do, take what is valuable to you and discard what isn't. He took elements of many fighting styles to create something which worked for him. The following is his take on defining "styles"

"If people say Jeet Kune Do is different from "this" or from "that," then let the name of Jeet Kune Do be wiped out, for that is what it is, just a name. Please don't fuss over it.[12] - Don't get hung up on labels and parameters. JKD is alive and therefore always changing; JKD embodies all and no style simultaneously, thus cannot be compared."
The same applies to Teaching. Understand the totality of the movement and use the methods and styles to make the positive change. Period.

SC

No disrespect intended.

You may be everything you say but another less talented teacher could say the same. It seems that i the student have to do too much work in order to ensure you can do for me what you say. I'm in Toronto and you could be 2000 miles away for one thing. And I do think it is rocket science to some teachers. I should never go to any professional for anything, whether for my brakes on the car or the dentist or the golf pro and not come away better. I don't want to keep trying drills. I want the fix to my problem or at least the knowledge of it.


I slice.

I have tried harder than Ben Hogan could have to play better. I got Never Slice and watched it . The Manz convinced me {don't quote} "that somewhere in my action i was opening the clubface."

Seems simple right. Well it is.

Now it takes a little more than that to find why you open it and how to stop opening it but he shows you how.

I won't tell the Manz he wouldn't believe the difference cause he would. For me however it is a major radical improvement. I have not been able to test it other than the range this week but it was an eye opener. The heat is coming and the courses are gonna open. I shoot in the ninetys . I guarantee I will be in the 70s soon , and i'll be chirping about it right here. No BS the betting line is open. IT is like a new swing. In fact that is exactly the feeling.


Now this is from a video. I've never met Brian. But I'm already a lot better because of a video from a guy who knows what he's doing. Remember I've lived OB right. I'm not trying to go on tour but I am gonna beat my friends next week. Do I still want to get a lesson from Brian. Hell yes. I still do a ton of things wrong. But i'm improving. I'm having fun again.

NOW. REAL TIME. OK.

OK lots of pros would have fixed me just as fast right? Wrong. My story of lessons and pros and struggle is pretty sad really and I'm the common guy. I'm the slicer. I'm the norm on the range. All I ever wanted was to smack that ball a little further and keep it on the course. I should be able to walk into any range where the teaching pro knows half as much as he says he does and say "look, here's the deal. You watch me hit 10 balls. Now you've seen my action and know what your working with. Can you make me hit it better, fix that slice , teach me a draw? Improve me at all, right now, today? If you can I will gladly pay you your rate and your minimum and a fancy tip if you can back it up. But if you can't......"

Any pro's take that deal? Would the Manz have taken that deal?

I'm just a million guys and girls that would gladly pay to get better . I don't want 10 lessons but i just might take them if i'm happy. I totally agree on trackman but if it wasn't around i still need help. I don't have the time or money to go to a big name guy or academy that i don't trust. I pity and know guys who have taken that route. I want some improvement and less frustration in my game and i don't mind paying for that.

 

[softconsult]

May have been some good points in this last post, but I stopped reading somewhere early on in that 340 word paragraph. Simply, too difficult to read it.

 

[slash]

May have been some good points in this last post, but I stopped reading somewhere early on in that 340 word paragraph. Simply, to difficult to read it.

Thats funny, and your right. Finished it about 3am , had to be at work here at 6. Don't even know what i was doing up. It reads like shite. Somewhere in there though ,I'm sure i had a point.

 

[BIGBALL]

Thats funny, and your right. Finished it about 3am , had to be at work here at 6. Don't even know what i was doing up. It reads like shite. Somewhere in there though ,I'm sure i had a point.

I had no problem reading it. Agree with everything you said! Hell, I could have wrote it

 

[softconsult]

Much better. Read the whole post.

 

[CanadianAMFTeachPro]

Slash,

No disrespect taken. I understand your frustration with the existing world of Teaching Pros. I am certainly confident in my own abilities to have you "fixed" and more importantly know why in one single lesson. If not, I wouldn't expect to be paid.

More teachers need to have a money back guarantee if they do not improve.

It is great that Brian's video is enough to steer you in the right direction.

Good luck!!

 

[Matt Bryda]

My educated guess would be that they went everywhere else and didn't get any solid useful information that helped their cause, whether it is teaching or playing.

My experience EXACTLY!

Like when I was 12 years old and it was the day after the second round of the World series of golf at Firestone and I watched Jack Nicklaus smash a golf ball and how high he would swing his hands to the top. So I went out to the range and tried to swing like jack did. I smashed the ball better than I thought I could and it was fun!
The next day the local pro said "Jack has a flying elbow and you can't swing like that". Of course I listend and my game went down hill immediately.

Repeat the same story over and over throughout the years. Golf instructors, golf pros and golfing companions had an opinion but nobody could explain the what and for me, the why!

Until now!

Thanks Brian

Matt

 

[birly-shirly]

Ever wonder why?

Why don't you compile a list of the "offenders" and ask them.

Are you serious? Why would I ask a blind man for directions?

Besides, I'm sure it's flattering and all for you, but I'd be genuinely surprised if you held quite such a black and white view of the rest of the teaching world. I mean, I admire your intention or ambition or whatever you want to call it, to be the best teacher THAT YOU CAN BE. I just don't think it makes sense to view teaching as a competitive activity - except in the same sense that any business is competitive.

I toally and completely disagree.

So sorry.

Methods blow 90% of the time, and don't fit 9% of the time.

So, by your arithmetic, 99% of the time it's NOT the actual teaching of the method that's to blame. That wasn't what I thought you were saying earlier in the thread. Nor is it what I'd expect to hear from you if the method is Ballard, S&T, Leadbetter or even Haney. Natural Golf or Dalton McCreary maybe...but for the rest - 90% blow? Even though less than 1% of golfers get anywhere near the model? Whew....

Jacobs was a common sense, ball-flight teacher.

He trained them in that style.

He didn't have the ball flight laws correct, and was quite a bit vague about impact alignments, but all in all I'd say he did better than most "trainers."

Thanks. On the theory side, the starting direction stuff was either off, or poorly explained in his books, although I'd expect anyone with a bit of nous to get a working system out of it, as good as anyone else going off ballflight and no trackman-type feedback. And as far as I can see, if Jacobs didn't actually invent common-sense ball-flight teaching, he did a great job in getting people to think in terms of impact factors and alignments rather than pretty swings. I thought you'd like that.

Anyway, I was at my local museum at the weekend and I saw a quote that I thought summed up this whole discussion.

"Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself, but talent instantly recognizes genius."

 

[Brian Manzella]

More No Contest...just for practice.

Are you serious? Why would I ask a blind man for directions?

Just so folks can follow all of your rambling, you asked why some of the forum members are skeptical of information from teachers besides me.

I replied, "Why don't you ask them?"

I added that the reason some guys think I know so much is because they had first hand experience with the so-called experts, and also with my stuff and would up thinking that I really am as out in front as I say I am.

You, of course, with some horse in the race, can't handle it.

Don't call ANY of these folks BLIND.

#1. They are smart enough to find me.

#2. Some of them are Top 50/100/Famous Teachers.

#3. They are smart enough not to have taken a number to be the latest victim, in the "I'll go debate Manzella, and lose badly" derby.

Besides, I'm sure it's flattering and all for you

It is.

And it didn't come from anything but GOOD INFORMATION, and results.

Although some folks like to see me slice and dice a detractor from time to time.

You see, Birly, I don't claim to have all the answers, just the best ones available right now.

I am not hanging my hat on TGM being the divine word of the Man upstairs, or having the best METHOD of all time.

I hang my hat on being the BEST live lesson giver, and the guy with the MOST USEFUL videos in the sport.

I'd be genuinely surprised if you held quite such a black and white view of the rest of the teaching world.

It really is a shame, you know. I could fix you in an hour, and you want to take shots at me.

I can't save everyone.

I mean, I admire your intention or ambition or whatever you want to call it, to be the best teacher THAT YOU CAN BE. I just don't think it makes sense to view teaching as a competitive activity - except in the same sense that any business is competitive.

Folks take shots at me ALL THE TIME.

The book literalists hate me because I exposed the bad science in the book.

And there is LOTS of it.

The S&Ters hate me because I said their #1 fundamental is fundamentally not the best way to get it done.

It isn't.

So there, I speak the truth and they take shots.

I shoot back, and they hate me more.

I am organizing a Summit where the best minds in the science fields of golf will be on the panel, and ALL the theorists are welcome to find out if their stuff holds water.

That includes me.

One difference, though.

When I am worng, I take my medicine and improve my information immediately and retro-fit it to my teaching.

The other guys will cry to their momma and bad mouth the science and scientists.

Mark it down.

So, by your arithmetic, 99% of the time it's NOT the actual teaching of the method that's to blame.

Sorry, I must have done a poor job explaining my point here.

This is my point:

99% of all golfers don't employ ANY RECOGNIZABLE FAMOUS or INFAMOUS pattern.

So, by definition, and by mathematics, METHOD TEACHING is NEVER going to be the way to becoming the best teacher ever.

Got it now?

And as far as I can see, if Jacobs didn't actually invent common-sense ball-flight teaching, he did a great job in getting people to think in terms of impact factors and alignments rather than pretty swings.

He deserves FULL CREDIT for that.

"Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself, but talent instantly recognizes genius."

That's why I like Dr. Aaron Zick so much.

That's why I went to see Dr. Paul Wood for two days.

You know something, I have never been Mediocre at anything in my whole life.

 

[caedus]

Magnificent . Curveball , fastball , or whatever its just batter up and boom , Brian knocks it way out of the ballpark with panache.
Brian ,how good were you with the ladies back in the day , I bet they called you " The Stallion"

 

[birly-shirly]

Magnificent . Curveball , fastball , or whatever its just batter up and boom , Brian knocks it way out of the ballpark with panache.
Brian ,how good were you with the ladies back in the day , I bet they called you " The Stallion"

Caedus - in only 2 posts, you have exemplified my argument beautifully.

Thanks.

 

[birly-shirly]

Just so folks can follow all of your rambling, you asked why some of the forum members are skeptical of information from teachers besides me.

I replied, "Why don't you ask them?"

I added that the reason some guys think I know so much is because they had first hand experience with the so-called experts, and also with my stuff and would up thinking that I really am as out in front as I say I am.

You, of course, with some horse in the race, can't handle it.

Don't call ANY of these folks BLIND.

#1. They are smart enough to find me.

#2. Some of them are Top 50/100/Famous Teachers.

#3. They are smart enough not to have taken a number to be the latest victim, in the "I'll go debate Manzella, and lose badly" derby.

I thought I had made it pretty clear where I'm coming from. But you KNOW that I've got a horse in the race. Go on then, tell all.

As for ANY Top 50/100/Famous Teacher who feels that they've been the subject of any criticism by me - I'd ask them to either post here or PM me and we'll take it from there. Jim did, we sorted any misunderstanding, and I see our exchange was taken down. Hey, ho...

Folks take shots at me ALL THE TIME.

The book literalists hate me because I exposed the bad science in the book.

And there is LOTS of it.

The S&Ters hate me because I said their #1 fundamental is fundamentally not the best way to get it done.

It isn't.

So there, I speak the truth and they take shots.

I shoot back, and they hate me more.

Whatever. I don't think I fit in either of those groups. Or any other method camp. And I don't think I've taken issue with any aspect of your teaching, which I'm sure is great. But since I've had the temerity to post that there might be other decent ways of getting the job done - I get the Soviet dissident treatment. Which is fine by me if that's how you play. Each to their own and people can draw their own conclusions.

Sorry, I must have done a poor job explaining my point here.

This is my point:

99% of all golfers don't employ ANY RECOGNIZABLE FAMOUS or INFAMOUS pattern.

So, by definition, and by mathematics, METHOD TEACHING is NEVER going to be the way to becoming the best teacher ever.

Got it now?

I don't even know whether or not we disagree here. A lot depends on whether you mean "don't employ" or "CAN'T employ". Let's take Leadbetter for example. I'm not claiming his stuff is the best. I wouldn't argue that it's perfect. But it has got form at the highest level. So, and this isn't aimed at you Brian unless you really want to put yourself in the line of fire, I do think that it's BLIND IGNORANCE to have forum posters going on about "Lead Poisoning" and the like. Now, if someone's had a bad experience with poor one-to-one teaching of the model, that's something else entirely. But dismissing the whole model as junk just seems one-eyed to me.

You know something, I have never been Mediocre at anything in my whole life.

Well, you know that could be taken one of two ways. But I've got no reason to doubt you...

 

[TROYNYGOLFER]

Caedus - in only 2 posts, you have exemplified my argument beautifully.

Thanks.

HUH???? Your initial argument, that teaching should not be a competition per se, and the ridiculous amounts of money that hackers spend on equipment versus instruction was sound. However, if you had followed this site for a while, you would have some additional insight into why Brian is less than tolerant to someone who implies (or at least leads me to infer) that the status quo of teaching is basically sound, and that most of us are merely sheep who have wandered into a new flock.

As for where I'm coming from, I have zero experience of lessons from some academy trainee. There are no schools of that sort where I am - just guys who earn their living by giving lessons on their own account and word of mouth referrals.

If there was a marquee school where one big name is the draw but where I'd be taught by an apprentice, I'd probably give it a miss. On the other hand, I've never had a lesson that I wasn't happy with. Much of that instruction was of the, shall we say, traditional variety - grip, stance, posture, ball position - but I've left feeling either that I was swinging better, or with a clear idea of what to work on.

I also take seriously the student's responsibility to offer up where I'm coming from, what I've been working on, ball-flight tendencies, how a move feels, whether I'm struggling with something, and so on.

So, in my experience, my teachers have all been perfectly competent.

Birly, you are either the luckiest student in golf, live amidst a sea of good instructors, or have very low standards. The reason the vast majority of the students here stick around is that we have had bad experiences with "great teachers" at the national and/or local level and recognize that the dominant golf media is suspect at best regarding instruction. Brian may not qualify for the Diplomat of the Year award, but I have learned more useful information in the past several months from this site than anywhere else.

 

[Brian Manzella]

Caedus - in only 2 posts, you have exemplified my argument beautifully.

Thanks.

Really, dude.

Have you made one point yet?

People like you come on this site and think they can handle "The Manz."

Make a point, any point.

Here are you attempts:

• Manzella plays golf teaching like football.

My counter—Everyone else plays WORSE, in private.

• My students shouldn't knock Leadbetter.

My counter—Ever heard the Papa John story?

• You say you get the "treatment" like back in the USSR.

My counter—I played footsie's with you until you couldn't take it anymore and exposed yourself as a spy, a detractor, or at best a double-agent.

Look Birly—and I really am sorry that is your name—I got to this point trying to help golfers. I do a great job of that in my lessons and on this forum.

I defend my turf. This is my turf, this is my storefront.

You can't walk in a Audi dealership shouting "BMW is the best, you ned to play nice on your commercials."

Well you can, but.....

So far, BTW, Manzella 100, Birlie-Shirlie 0

 

[birly-shirly]

[...]
My counter—I played footsie's with you until you couldn't take it anymore and exposed yourself as a spy, a detractor, or at best a double-agent.

[...]

I defend my turf. This is my turf, this is my storefront.

You can't walk in a Audi dealership shouting "BMW is the best, you ned to play nice on your commercials."

Well you can, but.....

So far, BTW, Manzella 100, Birlie-Shirlie 0

Brian - I noticed this before, that you like to play, referee AND keep score. Is that why you like "competition" so much?

As for the other points in just your last post.

"til I couldn't take it anymore?" Really? Did I complain? Have I gotten half as shrill as you? Or gone name calling? Or, actually, did I just go out of my way to say that this is NOT about what you, or as far as I'm aware, what your colleagues teach?

Matter of fact - I'm a satisfied customer. I bought one of your videos. I'm sure I posted that I liked it. But where on earth am I supposed to get the idea I could post a comment or a query, or heaven forbid, even take issue with something you've said and not have you self-combust with indignation?

And so according to you I'm now exposed as a "spy, a detractor or a double-agent"? Come on. You said I have a horse in the race. I think I've made it obvious that I don't. So, tell us, who am I working for and what is my ulterior motive?

As for shouting that BMW's the best? - what words should I use other than

I'm not claiming his stuff is the best. I wouldn't argue that it's perfect. But it has got form at the highest level.

Which bit of that did you misunderstand?

Your turf/your storefront? Fine. I'll respect that. Should I apologise for stumbling on here thinking that it was an internet discussion forum. If this is your Audi showroom - then fine. Say the word, and I'll take my thoughts elsewhere and you can run advertorial here to your heart's content.

 

[birly-shirly]

HUH???? Your initial argument, that teaching should not be a competition per se, and the ridiculous amounts of money that hackers spend on equipment versus instruction was sound. However, if you had followed this site for a while, you would have some additional insight into why Brian is less than tolerant to someone who implies (or at least leads me to infer) that the status quo of teaching is basically sound, and that most of us are merely sheep who have wandered into a new flock.



Birly, you are either the luckiest student in golf, live amidst a sea of good instructors, or have very low standards. The reason the vast majority of the students here stick around is that we have had bad experiences with "great teachers" at the national and/or local level and recognize that the dominant golf media is suspect at best regarding instruction. Brian may not qualify for the Diplomat of the Year award, but I have learned more useful information in the past several months from this site than anywhere else.

Troy - do I think the status quo of teaching is basically sound? On balance, in my experience - yeah, it's been OK for me. Maybe you're right that I have low standards. I read around a lot. I practiced a lot when I was younger. I ask around for teacher recommendations. I'm not super talented. And a lot of the time I've felt I got my money's worth from a lesson that says, in large part, that I'm on the right path. Not because I want platitudes. But I think that a lot of the danger for me is in exaggerating this move or that, or tearing something down that is actually looking and working OK for a second pair of eyes. Basically, "steady as she goes" seems to work for me.

As for the "sheep" thing - I guess you've got to decide for yourself whether the cap fits. I didn't mean my argument to be indiscriminate. Maybe it's just a vocal minority that posts the stuff I'm complaining about. But when I read that such and such instructor, who has maybe built a stable of successful tour pros, or a financially successful teaching business, or been on deck when a pro has really transformed their game, either CANNOT TEACH or HAS NOTHING OF VALUE TO SAY, well that just reeks to me of someone who is looking for KoolAid to buy (or maybe sell).

As for the dominant media? I just can't get excited about it. Instruction wise, I pretty well ignore it. But if someone wants to hate instructor X or claim that they're a know-nothing idiot on the basis of a 200 word tip in Golf Digest? Well, maybe I should just chill out and let them get on with enjoying life in blinkers. But I thought the point of the internet was to expand your horizons.

Going back to the start of this thread - I made the point that every method has its disciples, all of whom are posting furiously on message boards that everyone else is a phony and that they've discovered the one true way. My main point, and it's almost embarrassing after 8 pages of blood and thunder to be saying something that I thought ought to be so non-contentious, is that teaching generally is UNDERsold and that the differences between this sect and that sect are OVERsold, to the detriment of teaching as a whole.

Maybe I'm well out of touch with common opinion (although I'd hesitate to use a message board as my benchmark) - but whenever I hear someone claim to have ALL the answers and that there's NO NEED to look elsewhere or even engage your own critical faculties, I can't help but be sceptical. And I would say (and have said) exactly the same of anyone else claiming to have found the magic bullet.

 

[niblick1]

Troy - do I think the status quo of teaching is basically sound? On balance, in my experience - yeah, it's been OK for me. Maybe you're right that I have low standards. I read around a lot. I practiced a lot when I was younger. I ask around for teacher recommendations. I'm not super talented. And a lot of the time I've felt I got my money's worth from a lesson that says, in large part, that I'm on the right path. Not because I want platitudes. But I think that a lot of the danger for me is in exaggerating this move or that, or tearing something down that is actually looking and working OK for a second pair of eyes. Basically, "steady as she goes" seems to work for me.

The current state of teaching of golf is just atrocious. It's embarrassing (to the good teachers) how bad it is.

People for the most part either teaching one single method and trying to match people up to that method or people teaching a hodge podge of golf digest-like tips. A quarter of the golfers at my course are stone cold hackers, some of whom are still slicing hackers after 30 thirty years of beating balls and taking lessons from a variety of PGA pros and paying thousands for lessons because they still can't figure out why they slice. It's a problem half the people on this forum could fix after watching NSA three times.

It's true mediocrity rarely recognizes genius -- so what's your view again of the NSA video? So would a video that could cure a slicer's problem in an hour instead of leaving them slicing for thirty years count as true genius or not? There is a huge group of people who never, ever make it out of slicedom and never have. Would fixing that long-term problem with golf that causes thousands to quit after years of struggling be great or should those people instead sign up for a method to swing like some PGA pro and go to some video place and pay thousands to try to look like Tiger and never get rid of their slice?

The "one true way" people are the method teachers. If you've ever visited 3-4 teachers, maybe even some of the Top 100, you'd know just how bad some of the state of instruction is out there.

There are even a few people on the internet running golf internet forums who are complete and utter frauds. I took a two hour lesson from one of them. Imagine traveling five hours to a guy running an internet golf forum who you realize in 15 minutes knows very little about golf and can only spend two hours saying, "hit down on the ball more." The bland false equivalency that says teachers who have been teaching for 30 years and can't fix a slice and the total frauds are just the same as good as people who can fix a problem is just wrong.

And if you think having famous clients is the same as being a great teacher, you are the one drinking the kool-aid and maybe not watching a lot of televised golf lessons by famous instructors. Having famous clients who pay you lots of money DOES mean you are financially successful, but it doesn't mean you can teach a decent range of golfers successfully and doesn't mean your method might not kill the career of some PGA pro. Some people have great business models or were in the right place at the right time and can't teach at all. Many people here have firsthand knowledge of this phenomenon.

Should people be outraged, indignant, or hostile about the fact that they have in the past paid thousands of dollars to teachers who can't teach at all? I think the outrage is fair. Sadly, a huge percentage of teaching pros are still prescribing the golfing equivalent of leeches for every swing ailment and golf instruction is just now waking up to science and emerging from the Dark Ages. The guy prescribing weekly lessons at $150 a pop to matching up to Tiger on a line drawing program to fix a slicer is effectively prescribing leeches for appendicitis.

 

[ggsjpc]

Caedus - in only 2 posts, you have exemplified my argument beautifully.

Thanks.

Made me laugh! Good one.

 

[birly-shirly]

The current state of teaching of golf is just atrocious. It's embarrassing (to the good teachers) how bad it is.

People for the most part either teaching one single method and trying to match people up to that method or people teaching a hodge podge of golf digest-like tips. A quarter of the golfers at my course are stone cold hackers, some of whom are still slicing hackers after 30 thirty years of beating balls and taking lessons from a variety of PGA pros and paying thousands for lessons because they still can't figure out why they slice. It's a problem half the people on this forum could fix after watching NSA three times.

It's true mediocrity rarely recognizes genius -- so what's your view again of the NSA video? So would a video that could cure a slicer's problem in an hour instead of leaving them slicing for thirty years count as true genius or not? There is a huge group of people who never, ever make it out of slicedom and never have. Would fixing that long-term problem with golf that causes thousands to quit after years of struggling be great or should those people instead sign up for a method to swing like some PGA pro and go to some video place and pay thousands to try to look like Tiger and never get rid of their slice?

The "one true way" people are the method teachers. If you've ever visited 3-4 teachers, maybe even some of the Top 100, you'd know just how bad some of the state of instruction is out there.

There are even a few people on the internet running golf internet forums who are complete and utter frauds. I took a two hour lesson from one of them. Imagine traveling five hours to a guy running an internet golf forum who you realize in 15 minutes knows very little about golf and can only spend two hours saying, "hit down on the ball more." The bland false equivalency that says teachers who have been teaching for 30 years and can't fix a slice and the total frauds are just the same as good as people who can fix a problem is just wrong.

And if you think having famous clients is the same as being a great teacher, you are the one drinking the kool-aid and maybe not watching a lot of televised golf lessons by famous instructors. Having famous clients who pay you lots of money DOES mean you are financially successful, but it doesn't mean you can teach a decent range of golfers successfully. Some people have great business models or were in the right place at the right time and can't teach at all. Many people here have firsthand knowledge of this phenomenon.

Should people be outraged, indignant, or hostile about the fact that they have in the past paid thousands of dollars to teachers who can't teach at all? I think the outrage is fair. Sadly, a huge percentage of teaching pros are still prescribing the golfing equivalent of leeches for every swing ailment and golf instruction is just now awakening to science and emerging from the Dark Ages.

Niblick - you're putting words in my mouth that I would never use. Your experience of teaching is different from mine. Is that a tough pill to swallow?

Nice try on NSA - but I haven't seen it. I have NHA - and as I said above, I liked it.

I haven't struggled with a bad slice since I was a kid trying to control an over-long, deepfaced Wilson laminate driver. So maybe in that sense, I don't understand what all the fuss is about. I'll take your word for it that it's really that bad.

I've said what my experience is with real lessons. I've been to a few teachers - and my impressions are broadly positive. I wasn't expecting miracles, didn't get any, and didn't feel ripped off either. Nobody forced a method on me. Quite the reverse - we worked with what I brought. Very low key. Pretty effective.

About all I know of "top 100" teaching is what I can read in books. Much of it seems pretty sound. Much of it different ways to convey or express the same old fundamentals. Maybe that's not exciting enough for everyone. I like to see where there's common ground between different ideas and approaches. If there are differences, I like to try and understand why.

I kind of sympathise with your experience with internet forum teachers? But why, before you set off on a 5 hour journey, did you think the guy was going to be credible? With the benefit of hindsight, would you have done anything differently?

KoolAid? Not me. Now I think you're talking about the Haney Project - which I haven't seen. But do you agree or disagree that Tiger (a) is pretty golf smart (b) could have gone anywhere for help; and (c) must have had some reason for choosing as he did. Now even if Tiger got it wrong (and maybe he did) it doesn't matter for this argument - because your argument is that Haney has nothing whatsoever to offer and can't teach. My argument (and a pretty modest one at that) is that he does and can. Not that he's "da best" or anything dumbass and tribal like that - just that he's an interesting guy. Would I like to sit down and pick his brains and try to learn from him? You bet. Wouldn't you?

 

[Michael Finney]

Troy - do I think the status quo of teaching is basically sound? On balance, in my experience - yeah, it's been OK for me.

What more needs to be said or debated?....you're "OK" with what you've received.

But, why are you here then?