The trap

[drewyallop]

Where are financially successful, nationally known golf teachers in this search for scientific based golf theory?

If you have built your brand around specific techniques, for example, "connection", then tossing that because science suggests a better way is dangerous. Golf students seek certainty and the comfort of knowing that your teacher has the final answer.

What then are we to make of the crunching changes that have occurred here in the past year? The word iconoclast seems a good description of Manzella, Jacobs and associates. But not just in the sense of challenging an orthodoxy to gain attention (stack and tilt?). But rather a constant, unrelenting urge to challenge their own beliefs when rational reasons exist to do so.

Perhaps "search for the truth no matter where it leads" is too grandiose a description of the process here. But damn, you have to admire the integrity and courage of these minds.

Drew

 

[Jared Willerson]

Good point. The vast majority of professionals have staked their career on a neatly packaged view of "fundamentals" whether it be TGM,
1p2p swings or Swing the Clubhead, etc.

The quest for what really happens will not be appreciated immediately or maybe even in the near future but one day....

 

[Brian Manzella]

What sells out schools or a Tour Stops?

Why make folks visit this golf instruction websites often?

Simple.

Folks who take lessons want to hit the ball better. The sooner the better. They want lower scores.

Folks who read an instruction website want to be informed with the best possible information to help their games and(or) their teaching. They want to be entertained as well.


If you want to be considered the best of all-time at teaching golf, and explaining golf, could you do it without science?

 

[ZAP]

If I may be totally honest with you I was initially turned off by Brian and his ideas. I think it was because they were so different that the things I "knew" were right. Took me about two months of thinking about ideas and reading the forum pages before I began to respect the search for the truth. It takes some courage to ditch ideas when they don't seem right as Brian does.

If you want to see how much Brian and company has uncovered in the past few years do like I did and start reading from a ways back. Now I respect Brian not because he has all the answers but because he is continually asking the questions.

 

[Jim Kobylinski]

One thing that should be mentioned is the # of people who take lessons from Brian, me or any other of his instructors who don't even post. I don't teach much at all (limited weekend basis) and i would say HALF of my lessons this year were from new people who don't have a single post.

I'm sure if i advertised a whole bunch more and made this my career i could be fully booked.

 

[dbl]

If a person suffered problem X and heard of an instructor with "truth" version A (or B or C), there is some chance that they could improve, even though the "truth" faulty.

There is also some chance that truth D, being exactly opposite of problem X might help them a lot.

I think overall it is very rare for the a student to select for themselves a teacher(s) who could help them, since they probably have few clues about their own swing, physique, tendencies, miscomprehensions and the like.

In fact, from reading here at this forum, it's quite apparent there are many people who have gone from instructor to instructor (big names, quite often) and been directed completely wrongly or had their MAIN ISSUE overlooked or ignored.

So even if one could try to make the case that the current golf instruction landscape suffices for ~1% of golfer (who seek instruction), THAT is a pretty pitiful number. The only thing, perhaps, it seems to benefit would be the 1000s of instructors in existence.

ETA - PGA has 28,000 professionals.

After Manzella revolution - how many are needed? Well probably only 2000 or so. However, once instruction gets improved scientifically, maybe 10,000 would be needed once regular golfers (of the 25 million) would start lessons since they heard there is something truly effective.

Weird to think about this stuff...

 

[DCgolf]

It's what I learned after I knew everything that has made all the difference.

 

[dschultz6072]

Something will always work for someone. When that someone means something to someone else, that's where it begins. Leadbetter without Faldo? Butch without Tiger? Haney without Tiger? Foley without Tiger? I'm not saying those coaches haven't "helped" a lot of others, but it's not what you know, it's WHO you know. And who knows them. And who wishes they knew them.

 

[birly-shirly]

There's truth, and there are useful fictions. (probably a couple of other categories too, but I'm trying to be positive here).
It pays to know the difference.