No Contest.

[niblick1]

It took me about six months of playing golf when I was 11 years old to figure out how not to slice. But believe it or not, there are a huge number of people never get past it and this group pays huge sums of money to pros and many never, ever get past it. If NSA were given out to every golfer when they started golf, golf would be a different game with many more people shooting scores that keeps them coming back for life. The basic observation that underlies NSA strikes you as genius after you've seen it because all of a sudden you can actually see why people are slicing, and it seems so self-apparent...but then you would have never figured that out on your own.

Why did I go for lessons to someone who is relatively well-known (at least on the golf internet) but who is a total fraud for lessons? Tens of thousands of golfers ask themselves that every year (or maybe just quit golf). The local instruction was terrible, and I was looking for answers. The best line from that lesson? The teacher told me almost no student ever comes back for a second lesson because they are cured forever. I have a slightly different take on why students rarely come back.

I think your lesson experience is very unusual. Great for you. Then why are you here again? Many people have the opposite experience. Most of the golfers I play with, people with low and mid-handicaps, have given up on instruction and complain either that instruction is a racket or hugely expensive or that every teacher they go to tells them it will be a long process and they will play a lot worse for a while.

The difference between the lessons with Brian and the lessons with five other teachers over a lifetime of golf was immense. It can not be overstated.

I do agree with you that Tiger is very smart and knows a lot about golf. He was looking to make a change and there is a limited group of famous instructors on tour, and so he talked over "the field" of teachers with a buddy or two. My guess is something in Haney method immediately helped him address something that had been bugging him. Tiger's also really stubborn and finds it hard to admit when he's wrong. But who knows what he's using Haney for these days. I am guessing he has his own personal view of the swing.

As for questions for Haney, I have already learned a lot watching the current show on TV...

 

[caedus]

Made me laugh! Good one.

Yes It was funny . Better still is that stack and tilt stuff claiming they hit it high keeping right wrist bend using positive loft of the clubface from the back of the circle...rofl ...problem is the only ones who hit it high using the method throw away the right wrist bend on the elbow plane hitting over-draws or go down to the hands plane and hit weak spaceballs .... You can use that one next time Brian and hit them way out of the park

 

[slash]

Birly

I wish i could have said it like Niblick did. Perfect. Birly you are flat out stumpin in the wrong camp. You want to just argue or you don't get it. Your ideas should be in separate threads. Your one point about good used equipment and lessons is obvious and correct. The lesson is the problem.

Low slice. I don't believe my old Taylor 360 8.5* driver is the problem even though another driver may help. I have taught my kid all i know about golf. He hits my driver with a high draw. Really fun to watch and i know why he can do it. Cause he's a teenager , therefore he never listens to me. He has some innate ability. What and where he's learned it from only he may know.

His big miss is way fat. Divots are way inside /out. Solid pushes when he misses with contact. Exact opposit of my outside/in slash ..thus the name. I have told him I have zero idea how to properly fix him. I have told him that his good swings with those results are really on the rarer side of most peoples ability , seeing that most ams hit it like me. But he's lookin for help.

I have played for over 43 years. Struggled. I love this game. If you do not understand why I am terrified of sending my kid down some path for help and run the risk of ruining what maybe he already has, then you do not get the guts of this thread.

 

[birly-shirly]

why am I here?

Michael and Niblick - I'm here for the same reasons I'd buy a book. I'm interested. I'm a golf fan, and I'm interested in golf instruction.

I've got absolutely zero professional interest in what goes on here, or anywhere else in the golf world. I don't particularly want to discredit anyone, or big anyone up. No vested interests or hidden agenda. I don't think I'm particularly biased, or that there's been much bias in my posts here.

I'm still not sure whether that's "good" enough for everyone.

Maybe my bias is the background and experience I've had in learning the game. I'm not claiming to be anything special as a player and I don't want to come over all Michael Murphy - but maybe growing up in scotland is a different golfing experience to one in the states. You'd think it from this thread.

 

[TROYNYGOLFER]

Michael and Niblick - I'm here for the same reasons I'd buy a book. I'm interested. I'm a golf fan, and I'm interested in golf instruction.

I've got absolutely zero professional interest in what goes on here, or anywhere else in the golf world. I don't particularly want to discredit anyone, or big anyone up. No vested interests or hidden agenda. I don't think I'm particularly biased, or that there's been much bias in my posts here.

I'm still not sure whether that's "good" enough for everyone.

Speaking only for the "student" crowd on this thread, I believe you have had far better experience with golf instruction than has been our collective experience. I can see where you may find some derision of trendy instruction to be distasteful. However, those of us who have invested time, money, and countless practice hours on less than stellar (read:it sucked) instruction often express our sentiments in a less than polite manner.

 

[niblick1]

Michael and Niblick - I'm here for the same reasons I'd buy a book. I'm interested. I'm a golf fan, and I'm interested in golf instruction.

I've got absolutely zero professional interest in what goes on here, or anywhere else in the golf world. I don't particularly want to discredit anyone, or big anyone up. No vested interests or hidden agenda. I don't think I'm particularly biased, or that there's been much bias in my posts here.

No big deal to me. I like that Brian allows people with differing views to show up here. And frankly, even if I disagreed, how Brian and his team run their site is no business of mine anyway.

People do sometimes seem a little suspicious at times here because there have been over the years a lot of trolls, method and gadget self-promoters, Brian detractors, and people with axes to grind that popped up. I was just curious how someone who finds golf instruction so acceptable "as is" ends up looking for ideas in this nook of the internet. It was a genuine question.

Heck, maybe instruction in Scotland is actually much better than here in the US, perhaps fewer video line drawers and method teachers? Recent performance in PGA and world golf events (and Ryder Cup) indicates something might be better in the EU in terms of instruction...?

 

[Brian Manzella]

Made me laugh! Good one.

Just in case you didn't already know...

 

[Brian Manzella]

The Thesis, The Truth, & The Challenge.

Way back when this thread was started by me, I had a sound thesis.

A nice guy that plays "at" golf, took a lesson from a teacher that is well thought of on the web. And from what I know, off the web as well.

The guy shows up for a lesson with a classic, albeit severe, wide open clubface at the top of the swing. A maximum "twist-toward" that was carried through the rest of the stroke.

The teacher ignores, or doesn't see, the obvious reason for the golfer's weak slice.

Instead the teacher dives right in and starts teaching his method.

He got ZERO results, and the student went back.

The student showed up to take a lesson from me, and there to watch the proceedings was by GTE member Jeremy Hodge, who was there to witness and soak up some some of the magic that is supposed to exists in the teacher who bills himself as golf's best live lesson teacher.

That would be me, of course.

The lesson was as predictable as an episode of Holmes on Homes.

I fixed the problem in 14 balls, the student hit the rest of the shots like I guy that has broken 80 once instead of one who shot 90 once, and everyone left very happy.

My thesis was that golf is dying because there is a legion of new wave golf instructors who can't even fix a slice.

Of course the old wave wasn't much good at it either.

At the Vegas Tour Stop, the Manzella Train fixed up plenty of overly inside-out golfers, as apparently this relatively easy work is being left to the Manzella Academy as most modern Methods include elements that make this malady quite easy to be infected with.

So, where in the hell are the really good live lesson givers?

From what we have seen, there doesn't seem to be any common sense teaching going on, and by any measure, these method teachers are no contest for me on the tee.

Period.

Now we have this person, Birly-Shirly, a screename for a guy who thinks I should't beat my chest, and also thinks golf instruction out there is gererally good.

It has turned into exactly what he wanted, to show his pals elsewhere on the web what jerks we are over here.

I think that if you went back and read my answers to this person hiding behind his screenanme, that I pretty much won every point.

But, he doesn't think so.

He now is reduced to name calling with our friend Steve, who has spent his whole adult life figuring out this teaching business, and is rightly put off by this fantom swinging with both fists at a person undefeated in debates by non-scientists.

That would be me, of course.

I think all of his anger is woefully misdirected.

I am not the problem in the golf instruction business.

I have a forum that GIVES AWAY information to golfers and teachers around the world.

And that information is the very best, latest, up-to-date, science-based, real-world tested, on the whole world wide web of method teacher sites.

I am not a method teacher, of course.

So, Mr. Birly, I think you should go attack, provoke, or comment to the following offenders on their web sites:

1. The Book Literalists who make fun of the D-Plane, and anything else Dr. Aaron Zick has shot holes in. These are the guys that stood up at the Leitz seminar and proved why the dinosaurs aren't here anymore. They couldn't adapt.

2. The guys who say you can hit a fade off of the ground, by hitting the front side of the swing circle. You can try, but you'll whiff it. They also say the ball starts on the clubface, but, of course TEH BALL NEVER STARTS ON THE CLUBFACE!

3. Any teacher, cult, or method army, that can't fix this poor man's slice and THEN TEACH HIM SOME METHOD.​

These are the folks that are hurting golf by espousing incorrect dogma.

And just in case you want to debate me, I'll do it live on UStream, with a third party host, for $100 to be donated to the charity of the winner's choosing.

 

[Michael Finney]

don't really see the problem here.....birly is happy and he should be left alone...

brian, nice wrap up post with too much common sense for most

 

[birly-shirly]

Sorry Michael. We cross-posted. This is in response to Brian's "wrap up". Hey, ho.

I honestly don't know what we'd find to talk about.

I think that the hands-on teaching I've had has been fine. Somehow or other, you feel able to disagree. How would we resolve that one, either one way or the other?

I asked your thoughts about John Jacobs. I think we both more or less agree there. I don't know whether or not Jacobs is a "method" in your book.

Other methods? Well, whether it got lost in the noise or something else, I don't think you really came out on whether most golfers just "DON'T" match the model or "CAN'T" match the model. I think we'd agree that any model will suck if it doesn't come with clubface and path control. BUT, since I'm sure that you'd be pretty confident of zero-ing out any student, even one that brings someone else's method to you - I'd like to hear whether you think some movement patterns are more consistent, repeatable, powerful, or just plain "do-able" than others. Is there a core, fundamentally sound, movement pattern for golf - equivalent to say athletic technique in a field event like javelin? That would look a bit like a method, wouldn't it? Although you'd want to fine-tune it with face and path alignments. Rank and file teaching wouldn't START with the model - but maybe work towards it as time allows?

Kind-of on a related subject - I'd have liked to hear your thoughts on the methods that have at least some tour pedigree. Based on NHA, I'd guess that you quite like Ballard. Leadbetter's early work with Faldo or Price? What about Torrance and Harrington?

You know - it's funny the 3 places you suggested I should go (instead of here!). I'd have thought that it was obvious that I'm in no way a TGM literalist. One of the first threads here that I thought was interesting, and probably where I first posted, was the "what's wrong/what's right in TGM" thread. Just before arriving here, I had actually started a very similar thread on another forum - which isn't (so far as i know) explicitly pro-TGM. However, some people were so emotionally attached to the sacred word that the thread went nowhere. Not particularly abusive - just emotionally wearing until it withered and died because people couldn't put their allegiances aside and talk facts without getting all worked up.

No. 2 is Stack and Tilt, right? Well, if I was really interested in S&T - then yes, I'd get the book and the DVD and go see if there's an official website. But I'd also want a second opinion, maybe from somewhere like here. I wouldn't put all my money on one horse just because I find the "official" or even the "unofficial" S&T forum full of fanboys saying how wonderful it is.

3. is just a waste of time. I don't want to hang out with the lemmings as they all go throw themselves over the edge. I'll stick it out here until either I'm not welcome, or it's clear that I'm wasting my time here too.

You know, it'd be nice (a) if you could accept that I'm here in good faith and (b) if you wanted to discuss any of this without taking personal affront.

And finally, I'm sure that Steve is big enough to accept that I responded in kind. Name-calling? Guilty as charged. Defence? Reasonable provocation. Plus, I'm a first offender...and I was beginning to think it was house style.

 

[ggsjpc]

Made me laugh again.

 

[Brian Manzella]

Wrapping Things Up.

I honestly don't know what we'd find to talk about.

A guy walks into a bar, gets involved in a conversation, riles up the customers and the bar keep, and when challenged to a debate televised live around the world on the subjects in question says...

I honestly don't know what we'd find to talk about.

You gotta love it.

I think that the hands-on teaching I've had has been fine. Somehow or other, you feel able to disagree. How would we resolve that one, either one way or the other?

The debate would start with this question:

The state of golf instruction as we see it is adequate, or not even close to adequate?

Responses will be 3 minutes each, with a 45 second rebuttal if needed.

That's how you'd do it.

I can see why you don't want to debate, you really don't believe it yourself.

I asked your thoughts about John Jacobs. I think we both more or less agree there. I don't know whether or not Jacobs is a "method" in your book.

Not a method teacher.

I don't think you really came out on whether most golfers just "DON'T" match the model or "CAN'T" match the model.

The answers is that 97-99.9% don't DO the model, any model.

...since I'm sure that you'd be pretty confident of zero-ing out any student, even one that brings someone else's method to you - I'd like to hear whether you think some movement patterns are more consistent, repeatable, powerful, or just plain "do-able" than others.

Absolutely some patterns are better than others.

And I don't zero-out everyone.

I have plenty of draw guys.

Is there a core, fundamentally sound, movement pattern for golf - equivalent to say athletic technique in a field event like javelin?

Yes.

That would look a bit like a method, wouldn't it?

Yes.

But the group that teaches these ORTHODOX elements of models that are assembled into ORTHODOX patterns is VERY small.

Rank and file teaching wouldn't START with the model - but maybe work towards it as time allows?

No.

Rank & File teaching need to be able to solve the VERY solvable first.

I'd have liked to hear your thoughts on the methods that have at least some tour pedigree. Based on NHA, I'd guess that you quite like Ballard. Leadbetter's early work with Faldo or Price? What about Torrance and Harrington?

Never Hook Again is a Toms, Couples type model.

I never said I quite like Jimmy's stuff. I said it was better than most "gurus" stuff.

Leadbetter should be king of the world, and he is now almost a forgotten man. Faldo's swing was good, but very non-powerful.

I like Harrigton and Torrance's swings a lot.

...it'd be nice (a) if you could accept that I'm here in good faith

Don't act the fool, and you won't be played like one.

...and (b) if you wanted to discuss any of this without taking personal affront.

I am doing it, no?

Made me laugh again.

This John Graham isn't very subtle, eh?

 

[Brian Manzella]

BLOG: Baloney! by Brian Manzella

Every month or so for the past 28 years (really), someone tells me I shouldn't criticize other golf instructors.

I listen to what these folks have to say, but for the most part, I give honest appraisals of all golf teachers, golf lessons, golf theory, golf books, golf videos, golf swing seminar speeches, golf magazine articles, golf instruction websites, and golf swings.

Always have. Always will.

The #1 reason I wound up in this golf teaching business was the absolutely terrible instruction I received when I was a young golfer.

It stink, stank, stunk.

My first lesson was with a guy name Joe Dial. I don't think he invented the soap, but he was nice enough older man.

I was 11 years old.

He watched me make two or three swings and showed me some half-swing drill.

He never told me why. He never explained himself once. He never told me one thing about the swing I showed up with.

Now folks, that is just out and out goofier than a little bit.

When I was 11 years old, I was 105 pounds, and could throw a little league football about 40-45 yards (really). I was very strong, and very eager.

I would pee my pants if I kid like that showed up on my lesson tee on Tuesday morning.

I would be thinking about all the money we both were going to make.

But this guy had me do a stupid half-swing drill and never saw me again.

The next lesson I had was about four years later with PGA Tour player Mike Shea. Mike later became a Tour official, and was on TV more for rulings than he ever was for his golf.

He showed me how he wanted my right arm under my left at address. That was the whole lesson.

He never showed or told me why. But it did seem to help some.

He went back on Tour and that was that.

Two different times at Junior Clinics, I was "lucky" enough to run into two fairly famous golfers who happened to volunteer to teach that day. They weren't even from the city.

Johnny Pott, who played on three Ryder Ciup teams, and Wedgy Winchester, the trick shot guy who once won the national long drive with a 60-inch driver, both told me to "clear my hips."

Never told me why. Never told me how.

Jimmy Self was a 10+ hour a day teacher at the City Park Driving Range. Everybody was going to him in the city. I took my shot at 17 years old. I had the slices with my driver.

He told me to hit a couple shots. I hit two or three 180 yard 5-irons.

He told me to hit some big pulls, which I did on command, and then he jumped in, did a little dance with me for about 50 minutes, and then I hit two or three five irons that went about 140, and he said, "Boy, isn't that great."

I told my dad we were on our own. No more teachers, ever again. They all stunk, stank, stunk, and sucked.

My dad fixed me a little the next day for free.

That next summer, while I was trying to make myself into the next Lee Trevino (really), Bob Toski came to City Park to do a clinic.

He said—and I quote—"Stand parallel left to the target, like you are standing on railroad tracks. Swing smoothly and turn over your right and and shift your weight and finish turned over your left leg."

As I typed that, I realized that that was maybe a little more information than Toski actually gave out in the clinic.

I went back to beating balls, ala Trevino, and so did more than half the range patrons.

About three years later, I was teaching myself.

As the head of the City Park Junior program, I would watch the kids swing, and then I'd set them up like mini Tour players (not mini-tour players), and get them to swing like pros.

No stupid half swings, no chip-pitch-punch. Very few words unless they asked for them.

I started with a dozen little runny nose kids. By the fourth week, I had about double that, and some of little midgets starting looking like they knew what the heck they were doing.

The other teachers started getting really worried.

They got a lot more worried the next year. I had about 50 or 60 kids.

I was teaching so much better than these yahoos it was a joke.

I had next to no idea what the heck I was doing, but I could make a golfer out of a hacker, and I could fix a slicer.

They couldn't.

I managed to do this with out any bastardizing.

Now, I ask you, how in the world could I be that much better than a bunch of guys who had been doing this for years?

Easy.

I had 1000 times more talent and intelligence for teaching golf than they did.

And I was quick to change when sometime I thought might work didn't.

In other words, I quickly eliminating any Baloney from my repertoire.

The other teachers had plenty.

I would always watch those guys, pitiful as they were. I wanted to know WHAT they were teaching and WHY they were teaching it. I knew everybody's stuff cold.

I could give their lessons their way better then they could.

Why?

You have to know what is and isn't Baloney. To this day, that is pretty much 90% of our conversations at the Manzella Academy.

Is it is, or is it isn't, Baloney?

I took my first lesson in eight years in 1987 from Bentley J. Doyle.

Why did I go to him?

Because almost everyone said he was too complicated. I couldn't have cared if he was. He wasn't.

I just didn't want any Baloney. I got what I wanted—about 25 yards longer, and straighter.

After watching the seminars at the first PGA Teaching and Coaching Summit in 1988 in Dallas, I went home counting my money.

The big name guys didn't know squat.

Gregg McHatton's talk at the second Summit, at Nashville in 1990, was light years better than any of the talks there or in Dallas. And by then, I was pretty much teaching everything in his talk!

That was the year some of the big name teachers started asking me questions about the swing.

I was 28 years old then, and about as famous as the song "Times Three" by the band Arabi.

That was the year Pete Egosque said you shouldn't have ANY axis tilt in the swing.

Baloney!

At the third Summit in San Francisco, the speakers were entirely forgettable. Except for Mac O'Grady. He said Bobby Clampett was a crooked driver because he had too much lag.

Baloney!

Hogan had more and hit it straighter than Cal Peete.

When the Summits moved to New Orleans for a few go-rounds, the PGA finally let some faux live lessons happen.

That's where Leadbetter had four straight students shank it by the fourth ball.

World's #1 Coach.

Baloney!

I have taught a lot of Baloney myself over the years. But I never made four golfers in a row shank it in four balls or less.

Do you think Hank Haney is stinking it up with Ray Romano?

Mike Finney and I witnessed a much worse performance by Hank at the Kentucky Teaching Seminar he gave back in about 2002.

Utterly pitiful and full of Baloney!

When I did my speech at the AMF Seminar in Jupiter Hills in December of 2009, my first section was on "Junk Science."

Should have just called, "Ten Large Pieces of Baloney!"

I told on myself, admitting and apologizing for teaching 7 of the 10 at one point or another.

At least I didn't invent any of them.

But if I did, I would have 'feesed up.

If you do good, I'll give you an "Atta Boy." If you stick up the joint, you get a raspberry.

So to speak.

This thread was about a poor golfer looking to hit it better, and being whiffed by a supposed good teacher.

I fixed him in 14 balls, and it has taken almost 14 pages to get this thread back on point.

At the AMF National Teaching Summit last year in Chicago, at the elegant ballroom of Medinah Country Cub, I answered the question, "What makes golfers come back for more lessons" with a little short speech.

The Ballroom at Medinah

In my best Obama, I said....

"Somewhere in this great big world, there is a teaching building as nice as this room. With twenty-four 52 inch inch Sony XBR10's, 3D HD high-speed cameras, 12 TrackMans, and every 6° 3D system available.

But if you can't fix Mr. Fabersham's slice, you will never see him again."

Lorin Anderson, the AMF Instructor Division director, was not happy with my response. He said "We are ASSUMING that everyone in here can fix a slice."

I leaned over to the guy sitting next to me and said, "That would be an incorrect assumption."

A few months later in Vegas, I looked like a prophet.

By the way...

Brian Manzella's talk at the 2005 TGM Summit - C+

Brain Manzella's talk at the 2008 Better Golf Through Technology Conference at MIT - B

Brian Manzella talk at day 1 of the 1st GTE in 2009 at Lake Presidential - C-

Brian Manzella talk at day 2 of the 1st GTE in 2009 at Lake Presidential - B+

Brian Manzella talk at AMF Seminar in Jupiter, Florida 2009 - B-

Brian Manzella talk at day 1 of the 2nd GTE in 2009 in Las Vegas - B-

Brian Manzella talk at day 1 of the 2nd GTE in 2009 in Las Vegas - B-​

These are my honest grades of my own speeches from recent years.

I call 'em like I see 'em, bro.

There is NO REASON why golf instruction can't improve to the point where 50% of golfers take a lesson every two or three years.

Right now it is at 11%!

And when someone who doesn't give lessons for a living, who hasn't spent every hour of the last 28 years climbing a mountain while the guys on top throw KY jelly at you, who isn't the ONLY HUMAN BIENG with perfect attendance at all the PGA, AMF, MIT, & TGM summits, with a website that gets 4 million hits a month because the big names' sites blow, says he thinks that golf instruction is fine and I should be so competitive about it and stop knocking other teachers???

Ba-loney!

You see, Birly-Shirly (don't you just love screenames?), when I say I can teach better than Haney or Harmon or Whoever, it is because pretty much am damn sure I can.

How do I know?

I have seen 'em all, and I get LOTS of their castoffs.

When I say that I can fix 'em—whoever they are out there, you probably couldn't care less. Maybe you don't need to be fixed.

But their are folks that WANT TO BE FIXED, and sometimes I am their last hope.

They come to me from all over the world, knowing that either I am right, and I am 10 times better than the "Troubleshooters" or I am full of it, and so then they just CAN'T be fixed.

They show up, & I fix 'em.

And that ain't no joke.

And no Baloney!

 

[mb6606]

Your on top of your game with that narrative.
Happy Easter to all the Manzellaites!

 

[Scott P]

If the GTE speeches in Vegas were a B- I'd love to see an A!

 

[Rick Dandy]

Y.E. Yang

 

[Steve Khatib]

Anxiously awaiting the 'Birly-Shirly' response.

By the way everything Brian wrote was 100% true as I attended all but a couple of seminars since 1996 that Brian attended.

 

[caedus]

Anxiously awaiting the 'Birly-Shirly' response.

By the way everything Brian wrote was 100% true as I attended all but a couple of seminars since 1996 that Brian attended.

I'm not , but sure would like to know who the instructor was , may as well slog this bloke out of the ballpark like the others mentioned in this thread. Come on Brian , don't be shy , its a fastball right over the plate!

 

[birly-shirly]

There is NO REASON why golf instruction can't improve to the point where 50% of golfers take a lesson every two or three years.

Right now it is at 11%!

And when someone who doesn't give lessons for a living, who hasn't spent every hour of the last 28 years climbing a mountain while the guys on top throw KY jelly at you, who isn't the ONLY HUMAN BIENG with perfect attendance at all the PGA, AMF, MIT, & TGM summits, with a website that gets 4 million hits a month because the big names' sites blow, says he thinks that golf instruction is fine and I should be so competitive about it and stop knocking other teachers???

Ba-loney!

You see, Birly-Shirly (don't you just love screenames?), when I say I can teach better than Haney or Harmon or Whoever, it is because pretty much am damn sure I can.

Nice blog post. But to be fair, it was more of a resume than an argument, nevermind an argument about anything I've actually raised here.

I mean, if what you want to say is "I've been teaching for years and you've not, so when I say you're talking BALONEY, then you just need to take my word for it" - well, that's your prerogative.

There were a few points in that screenfull that I'd have liked to take up, but since I've been accused of rambling, I'll try to focus on the section quoted above which is the only bit of your post that deals with what we're in such (apparently) violent disagreement over. And you think my position is that all instruction is fine, and that you shouldn't compete or knock anyone else.

So I went back to look at my first consignment of baloney on this thread.

My actual points were -

the whole idea of teaching as "a contest" [is] one of the fundamental reasons why it'll never happen.

AGREE/DISAGREE?

the teaching community AS A WHOLE would (again, IMHO) command more respect and probably teach more lessons if they stopped pissing on each other's theories, teaching styles, credentials and results. I don't think it helps at all that, depending on who you listen to, EVERYONE is getting it drastically wrong.

This is about the industry AS A WHOLE. I understand that you're in business and I'm not telling you how to run your own affairs. If your strategy is to take the largest slice of a smaller pie (you said only 11% of golfers take a lesson every 2 or 3 years?), then again, that's your prerogative. But you started this thread with thoughts about what "the world of golf needs." So, what would be your strategy if you had responsibility for teaching across the whole profession? An unregulated, unco-ordinated free-for-all, and devil take the hindmost? Or would you try to build whatever consensus is possible across rival teaching operations? Actually, although I don't know much about it, I got the impression that your GTE was a pretty worthy attempt at raising the bar generally? Open to all, isn't it? But what's the sales pitch for signing up? Do you say "Join my education programme, or I'll lambast you as a baloney spouting idiot"? Probably not, I'd guess.

meanwhile, I think it's something of a scandal what many golfers will shell out on replacing a 2 year old driver or a set of irons sporting BOLD NEW GRAPHICS when the same golfer is probably sceptical that money on lessons might be more help.

Since it was pointed out that this point was OBVIOUS and you never took issue with it yourself, I'll assume you agree here.

a teaching contest isn't necessary, nor is it particularly scientific. however, since most everyone here is already enamoured of trackman I think it would be a pretty obvious step to post up, IN OBJECTIVE FIGURES, the improvement resulting from lessons given. no-one else needs to play, no-one needs to compete. hell, we're not even talking about improved SCORING, which to some minds is supposed to be the point. but I think it would be incredibly powerful to show in hard data some actual results - whether that's increased clubhead speed, a more centered strike, or a zeroed out path and face.

You did this. I gave you credit for doing this. I actually said that I thought you might be UNDERselling yourself. Ever been accused of that before?

anyone who does this with any credibility will raise the bar on good teaching - which would be a far more effective challenge than pitching some reality gameshow that will never air.

So, if I'm full of baloney do you think the gameshow is a go-er? I have my doubts, but then I'm full of it of course... But you'll have noted that I did say "challenge" - so not trying to clip your wings here.

 

[holeout]

birly,

I think Brian (and myself and others) take issue when you say, "the teaching community AS A WHOLE would (again, IMHO) command more respect and probably teach more lessons if they stopped pissing on each other's theories, teaching styles, credentials and results. I don't think it helps at all that, depending on who you listen to, EVERYONE is getting it drastically wrong."

The teaching community will command more respect and teach more lessons when they CAN FIX A SLICE IN ONE LESSON. I'd wager less than 5% of teaching pros can do this in an hour. If you spent $50 for an hour lesson and didn't get fixed, would you go back again?