Teacher-instructor versus golf 'coach'....

[Nitro7]

I know a number of teachers that bill themselves the greatest teacher in the world. Do I think any of them are?
No I don't, basically because they all have some limitation that would cause them to fall short of greatest. But,
there are many excellent teachers today who are experienced and posses the science knowledge that you're
talking about. So to answer your question, they already exist.

Is this scientific knowledge necessary to teach pro golfers? I think that's already been proven and the answer
is no. Trackman has helped pro golfers to a certain extent, especially with their equipment, but, until there is
a way to clearly equate this science to ball striking that directly leads to tournament victories, it will remain
accurate information that may or may not assist teachers and/or players at the highest levels. Sometimes it's
better for a great player to go and just hit shots and leave the science alone.

Nothing will stop Brian from pursuing the golf swing based on science and I dig that. What he discovers for
himself will be realities of the swing that have been performed for many, many years, by many, many great
players. Along with his scientific friends, he's creating a more exacting terminology which allows us to have
better insights into those realities. That can only be a good thing IMO. I'm paying close attention.

 

[SteveT]

I know a number of teachers that bill themselves the greatest teacher in the world. Do I think any of them are?
No I don't, basically because they all have some limitation that would cause them to fall short of greatest. But,
there are many excellent teachers today who are experienced and posses the science knowledge that you're
talking about. So to answer your question, they already exist.

Since you know and have apparently evaluated some "greatest" teachers and have found them wanting, could you please tell us what, in general, they lack? Also could you please name the teachers who you say already possess the experience and science knowledge, so we know who they are? I don't know who they are and I would appreciate knowing.

Is this scientific knowledge necessary to teach pro golfers? I think that's already been proven and the answer
is no. Trackman has helped pro golfers to a certain extent, especially with their equipment, but, until there is
a way to clearly equate this science to ball striking that directly leads to tournament victories, it will remain
accurate information that may or may not assist teachers and/or players at the highest levels. Sometimes it's
better for a great player to go and just hit shots and leave the science alone.

Then how do the teachers who you say have the scientific knowledge utilize their skills to help pro golfers? Why do you say that the science must equate to tournament victories.... couldn't it just reveal why a golfer is physically or mentally deficient to win and there is no solution? Are you suggesting that if science can't directly produce tournament wins, it should be ignored or even discarded? Didn't Tiger dabble in the dark sciences even before Harmon?

Nothing will stop Brian from pursuing the golf swing based on science and I dig that. What he discovers for
himself will be realities of the swing that have been performed for many, many years, by many, many great
players. Along with his scientific friends, he's creating a more exacting terminology which allows us to have
better insights into those realities. That can only be a good thing IMO. I'm paying close attention.

Are you saying that science will not reveal new truths about the golfswing, the truths that have not been realized before? Are you saying there is nothing new under the sun insofar as the golfswing is concerned, and science is just "back-engineering" what is already perfection, if only everybody could agree what that perfection is?

Your comments are revealing if not provocative, so I'm just asking questions for further clarification. Thanks for your opinion, anyway.

 

[Nitro7]

please name the teachers who you say already possess the experience and science knowledge, so we know who they are? I don't know who they are and I would appreciate knowing.

Geez, let me think....here's one...

Brian Manzella

 

[SteveT]

Geez, let me think....here's one...

Brian Manzella

That goes without saying.... but you said "...there are many excellent teachers today who are experienced and posses the science knowledge..."

So who do you think is equal to our Brian... who are the other "excellent teachers" you know... name names...??

... and what about my other questions... are you still digesting them ...

 

[Kevin Shields]

I think it's a well known rule that other teachers are not discussed here.

 

[ZAP]

I think it's a well known rule that other teachers are not discussed here.

Good call. It felt like this thread was going that direction. Honestly this seemed like an iffy topic to begin with.

 

[SteveT]

I think it's a well known rule that other teachers are not discussed here.

I think that was meant not to discuss other teachers judgmentally in comparative detail. Surely we can identify other teachers based on what they represent ... like Mac O'Grady/MORAD and Plummer-Bennett/1-2 Plane.

I think it's fair to ask Nitro7 to identify teachers in his comment "...there are many excellent teachers today who are experienced and posses the science knowledge..." since he apparently knows who they are. Science doesn't discriminate... it reveals.