No Contest.

[Damon Lucas]

birly,

If you want communism, go to China!

What I mean is that what you're suggesting has not worked for Brian one iota, nor has it helped golf instruction.

The PGA suggest that you go visit your local PGA member, without providing any basis as to what constitutes a good teaching professional. Heck, they don't even separate teaching professionals from the shop guys and girls.

The Golf Channel do nothing. They reward guys who completely fail -see Hank's efforts with Barkley.

The magazines are entirely political and offer generic nonsense.

And on it goes.

So Brian, if you read his posts, says explicitly that he TRIED to do it your way. He attended the seminars, he waited his turn, and got nothing. So he changed up, as every good businessman MUST.

And he got results, so one of his main points has been that if you want your fairy tale land of mutual love, go find it elsewhere! That is not meant in a bad way. It is just not how Brian has made it to where he is now, nor is it how Brian intends to continue to raise the entire golf profession's bar - through good 'ol COMPETITION!

Even China is changing though, last time I looked.

 

[TROYNYGOLFER]

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.

Birly, IMHO the problem is that 98% of average golfers follow the PGA/State-run golf media mantra regarding golf instruction. Like any inertial bureaucracy with a vested interest in the status quo, the current beneficiaries of the system are not going to simply open the door, thank Brian and like-minded instructors, and invite them in. I suspect some of Brian's more confrontational approach reflects his frustration with trying the conventional approach.

 

[birly-shirly]

@ holeout, damon and troynygolfer

holeout - of course I agree with you, IF your 5% figure is right, and IF we could get slicers fixed FOR THE LONG TERM in one lesson. That would be great.

Like I said, I've not struggled with a slice, haven't taken lessons to cure a slice, and can't really have a view on what is happening "on the ground" at home, nevermind in the US/Canada.

So I suppose the clincher for me would be a bunch of teaching pros coming on this thread and saying in effect - "yep, we had no idea how to cure a slice until we found this site."

[OK - I accept that there might be loads of not terribly good reasons why that might not happen.]

Damon - we're on the same page on some stuff. Golf media? Not exactly setting the heather alight, is it? If this was a discussion about whether sites like this will "do for" the conventional golf media - I'd be totally on-message, trust me.

Then again, what's with the China analogy? You want to tar me as a "bureau of central planning" functionary, or a naive utopian? All I did was start with Brian's premise "what the game of golf needs...".

But if instead we're just talking about the interests of the Manzella academy, and nothing wider, then I'm as happy as the next guy to back right off and let the market do its thing.

What I would like to hear though is an acceptance that, especially with the web, the playing field is now pretty level and that competitive market share should be a reasonable indicator of quality/value. Sure, you can quibble, but that's more or less capitalism, right?

Which leads neatly to Haney. Are you just saying that the show with Barkely was a complete failure, or that HANEY is a complete failure as a teacher? I think there's a danger that the 2 might get confused - unless of course your point is that one follows from the other.

The other thing that confused me was you saying that what I've suggested has already been tried by Brian.

To be honest, I hadn't picked up that this was what Brian WAS saying in his posts. After your post, I re-read the thread. Maybe in the last BLOG post?

However, if that's the case, then presumably the idea's not entirely baloney. If it was tried, and didn't work out, then I'm sorry.

troynygolfer - I hear what you're saying. But an awful lot depends on the percentages being thrown around here. Holeout's 95% of teachers? You've got 98% of students. "My" percentage is the proportion of published books that I have on my shelf from all quarters of the instruction world that I think have some decent value. None of them are perfect, and most of them have "faults" - but I think the vast majority are worth having around.

There's a range being quoted here - all the way from someone saying (apparently seriously) that NO-ONE outside of the Manzella Academy (or the membership of this board) can fix a slice, through 98% of students have a lousy learning experience and 95% of teachers are incompetent, and all methods blow through to me saying that all my teachers have been fine and almost all my books worth buying. But I think we agree that the glossies suck badly...

 

[hitman119]

All I have to say is it is site like Brian's that get real information to people. I just finished PGA level2 last month, we tested on the old ball flight laws.

My first seminar was on V1 and how to use it. I have used it many times and read this forum. The instructor drew a line on a pro and the camera moved. I raised my hand to say "that line is irrelevant now right?" The teacher said no the camera moves sometimes.
Well, not when I teach or shoot, but anyways these are the futures PGA professionals not learning proper teaching techniques. I would love to have had Brian there for that one!

 

[spktho]

I don't know if it matters....

But me, my wife and a buddy of mine had a few lessons from two different PGA teaching pro's. Me and my buddy were slicers and both teachers never talked about clubface control, only positions that needed to be "hit" during the swing. My wife didn't improve any, so she gave up trying. I can't get my buddy to go out any more either. I guess I'm a bit more stubborn & found Brian.

 

[Steve Khatib]

All I have to say is it is site like Brian's that get real information to people. I just finished PGA level2 last month, we tested on the old ball flight laws.

My first seminar was on V1 and how to use it. I have used it many times and read this forum. The instructor drew a line on a pro and the camera moved. I raised my hand to say "that line is irrelevant now right?" The teacher said no the camera moves sometimes.
Well, not when I teach or shoot, but anyways these are the futures PGA professionals not learning proper teaching techniques. I would love to have had Brian there for that one!

Exactly, hitman! Although I did not know what I know now at PGA school I still knew that I had to answer the questions wrong to pass( if that makes any sense).

I could quite answer them wrong enough and got a 65% mark in teaching.

Now all the guys that answered them wrong but right got 100%. All those guys now give about 5 lessons per week of absolute junk science at best instruction to the poor men and women private club memberships that they teach at.

 

[Brian Manzella]

Put up, or shut up.

I don't know if it matters....

It doesn't matter.

Birly has been debunked many times throughout the thread by multiple points and posters, but maintains his ground.

Why?

Because, like Playa Brian, CarollGalleyZ, and the others before him, he his not here to learn, but to make his point.

What is his point?

Brian, you ain't all that.

Like I said, let's have a discussion LIOVE on UStream, and let the chips fall where they may.

Are you game?

Hell no.

Everyone like to "debate" me, but no one wants to really debate me.

Where in the world are you going to be some nobody from nowhere, hiding behind some screenname, and get a shot to go at the big dog?

Right'chere, my brotha. Right'chere.

 

[spktho]

This argument reminds me of: "I reject your reality and substitute my own." Adam Savage(Mythbusters)

 

[birly-shirly]

This argument reminds me of: "I reject your reality and substitute my own." Adam Savage(Mythbusters)

First post on this thread that I think EVERYONE would agree with.

Self included.

 

[birly-shirly]

it's not about da' bate

It doesn't matter.

Birly has been debunked many times throughout the thread by multiple points and posters, but maintains his ground.

Why?

Because, like Playa Brian, CarollGalleyZ, and the others before him, he his not here to learn, but to make his point.

What is his point?

Brian, you ain't all that.

Like I said, let's have a discussion LIOVE on UStream, and let the chips fall where they may.

Are you game?

Hell no.

Everyone like to "debate" me, but no one wants to really debate me.

Where in the world are you going to be some nobody from nowhere, hiding behind some screenname, and get a shot to go at the big dog?

Right'chere, my brotha. Right'chere.

Like I said before, what are we going to debate?

If I had an agenda or a philosophy or a methodology that conflicts with the Manzella Way ("a horse in the race" like you accused me of having) - sure, a debate would make sense.

As far as I'm concerned, this thread finished as a debate a few pages back when I stated, as clearly as I could, the experience I've had taking lessons and learning golf.

Since then, all I've been doing is answering questions or accusations as best I can. I think I've been called a spy, a detractor, a librarian, an idiot, a competitor, a communist and a fantasist - and I've responded. I'm not sure that you've done the same. But the basic issue is that my personal experience of lessons and learning doesn't seem to match what other people here report. But if my experience isn't shared by other members here (even the overwhelming majority, if that's what it is), then fine, I can let that lie. Why can't you?

Are we really going to have a meaningful debate where I say "I think the lessons I've had have been OK" and you say "No they've not."? That would be absurd. About as absurd as you saying "This is what and why I teach", and me contradicting that. Or debating whether or not I grew up in a house with a green front door.

You're right. I don't want a debate. Debate's are for people with positions or agendas that they want to advance. I've got none of that. I've got some personal views that I'm not overly keen to force down anyone's throat. Mostly, I've got questions. But I'm beginning to think I'm not going to get answers here.

Maybe an interview or Q&A would work if you still think we've got unfinished business. If not, I guess I'm done.

 

[Brian Manzella]

Like I said before, what are we going to debate?


Maybe an interview or Q&A would work if you still think we've got unfinished business. If not, I guess I'm done.

I'll take an interview, a Q & A or anything at this point.

You are a brilliant deflector, and I want to hear it live.

Besides, I disagree with so many of your points and thoughts, I'd love the chance to "smarten" you up.

When do we go to the post?

 

[ZAP]

Live is good.

 

[birly-shirly]

Live is dramatic, but I was thinking more Letter from America than Jerry Springer. I think the sort of questions that I have in mind would work better in a written format, plus I'd like to have the time to consider your answers before moving to the next question. I don't plan on preparing thoroughly for this just to avoid awkward silences whilst I think about what you're saying.

Do you think you could still smarten me up via the written word?

Do you want to put any boundaries down on the questions or topics we can cover? If yes, it might be better to PM me.

If we do it here, can we agree that you're not going to edit or delete any more of my posts - provided I play by whatever rules you want to set?

 

[macduffer]

I was going to make a comment on the nature of debate but have no wish to go down in more flames than the Hindenburg (sp?).

I do have one question, though, which I'd be grateful if the Manzella guys (or the man himself) could answer.

That is, if Haney really is awful (as his recent attempts at fixing Ray Romano suggest), then why on earth is Tiger still working with him? I mean, Tiger's not (I don't think) stupid, and could (I assume) contact pretty much any teaching pro and have them on his doorstep in 24 hours. So why doesn't he?

I think answering that question would provide a useful way of addressing Brian and Birly's contretemps. If teaching is competitive, then why does the competition not see Haney replaced?

 

[ZAP]

I was going to make a comment on the nature of debate but have no wish to go down in more flames than the Hindenburg (sp?).

I do have one question, though, which I'd be grateful if the Manzella guys (or the man himself) could answer.

That is, if Haney really is awful (as his recent attempts at fixing Ray Romano suggest), then why on earth is Tiger still working with him? I mean, Tiger's not (I don't think) stupid, and could (I assume) contact pretty much any teaching pro and have them on his doorstep in 24 hours. So why doesn't he?

I think answering that question would provide a useful way of addressing Brian and Birly's contretemps. If teaching is competitive, then why does the competition not see Haney replaced?

In some ways I think Haney's method fits into Tiger's idea of how he wants to swing. The other thing is Tiger is so ultra-talented he could play well with just about anything. Ray Romano? Not so talented.

One thing Haney is effective at is finding ways to teach his method. Some of the drills you saw Barkley doing and now Ray are perfect for getting you to swing like he wants you to.

That said I kind of like the idea of a written debate but live would be better because it is easier to get inflection and meaning from spoken word.

 

[macduffer]

Some fair points there, Eyeoffish. But surely just because Tiger could play well 'with just about anything' (something with which I don't disagree) doesn't mean he couldn't play better another way. He must, for example, be just a little irritated about losing 1 in 3 or 4 drives well right?

 

[ZAP]

Some fair points there, Eyeoffish. But surely just because Tiger could play well 'with just about anything' (something with which I don't disagree) doesn't mean he couldn't play better another way. He must, for example, be just a little irritated about losing 1 in 3 or 4 drives well right?

Well if he is shaping his swing this way to try to eliminate the left side then he may expect to miss on the right. What he needs to do is go back to the 2000 swing. That year was crazy good. He will never admit Butch for whatever reason had him playing his best.

 

[TROYNYGOLFER]

I was going to make a comment on the nature of debate but have no wish to go down in more flames than the Hindenburg (sp?).

I do have one question, though, which I'd be grateful if the Manzella guys (or the man himself) could answer.

That is, if Haney really is awful (as his recent attempts at fixing Ray Romano suggest), then why on earth is Tiger still working with him? I mean, Tiger's not (I don't think) stupid, and could (I assume) contact pretty much any teaching pro and have them on his doorstep in 24 hours. So why doesn't he?

I think answering that question would provide a useful way of addressing Brian and Birly's contretemps. If teaching is competitive, then why does the competition not see Haney replaced?

Tiger and other top pros are no more immune to the "prevailing wisdom" than any other individual. Why would they be immune to the dominant golf media culture? They are directly in the middle of it, and frequently touted by the top teachers as examples.

There is a tremendous amount of money involved and invested in the status quo. The equipment manufacturers are very happy with the current teaching situation. Birly noted early on in this discussion how many golfers cannot wait to part with $400 for the "new" driver, or even four figures for the exotic stuff, but will not pop for $100 to have a good instructor get them some actual game improvement. I am confident that Team Tiger is highly influenced by Nike and other sponsors and would be appalled at the thought of their beloved printing press in the hands of someone outside the mainstream.

If anything, Tiger, Phil, and the other top golfers are under even more pressure to conform. Can you imagine the media backlash and criticism any one of the top ten would come under if Brian Manzella showed up with any one of them on the practice tee? They have so much to lose for making a radical decision, and since most people are risk-averse to begin with, and tend to increase risk-aversity under pressure, it is understandable that they prefer to remain in the mainstream.

 

[caedus]

If anything, Tiger, Phil, and the other top golfers are under even more pressure to conform. Can you imagine the media backlash and criticism any one of the top ten would come under if Brian Manzella showed up with any one of them on the practice tee? They have so much to lose for making a radical decision, and since most people are risk-averse to begin with, and tend to increase risk-aversity under pressure, it is understandable that they prefer to remain in the mainstream.[/QUOTE]

Would the media really care about this? I not sure whether they would give 2 hoots if Tiger turned up with BM , interested for sure , but a radical decision!!
I can't figure out why top players get lessons from chumps who frankly can't hit it .
Radical is getting coached by Leadbetter , Haney who are both chumps when the demo is required.
So I ask why are top players getting coached by chumps? The theory can be blown up in 5 mins at BM .Com , they hit it like a chump , yet they give the best a golf lesson or method

 

[Richie3Jack]

If anything, Tiger, Phil, and the other top golfers are under even more pressure to conform. Can you imagine the media backlash and criticism any one of the top ten would come under if Brian Manzella showed up with any one of them on the practice tee? They have so much to lose for making a radical decision, and since most people are risk-averse to begin with, and tend to increase risk-aversity under pressure, it is understandable that they prefer to remain in the mainstream.

Guys like Tiger and Phil wouldn't give a damn what the media thinks about who their instructor is. The change Tiger made going from Butch to Haney was not well received at all. And for good reason, he was a far, far better ballstriker under Butch than he has been under Haney from day one.

Tiger has stuck with Haney in part because I believe Haney has really sold Tiger on Haney's 'science' as well as I think Tiger's ego is such where he really doesn't want to admit that Butch's swing worked better for him.

Remember at last year's PGA when he lost in the final round to Yang, he didn't dare hit driver while Yang freely did. Tiger struck the ball well, but stayed away from the driver and even the 3-wood so much that he had these really long iron shots into the greens on almost every hole. He hit those irons well, but from 190-220 yards out every time, it's tough to get those shots close. Yet, Tiger went out of his way to talk about how well he hit the ball and completely ignored how conservative he hit it off the tee.

Again, this showed me that Tiger's ego is such that he really doesn't want to say 'Butch, you were right.'

Of course, if he went to somebody like Brian he could make changes without having a Butch type swing.

Phil has changed teachers twice that I know of. He worked with Dean Reinmuth and then went to Rick Smith and now is with Butch. He also used to work with Pelz and now works with Dave Stocton.

I think most of the big names stick with the big name instructors because that's all they know and those instructors are usually readily available and have connections with the players.

If Brian started working with Phil tomorrow, you wouldn't hear a thing from the media unless it went really well or if Phil made an announcement he was switching to Brian (even that wouldn't get scrutiny) and then had a streak of really bad golf.







3JACK