Vince Lombardi + Brian Manzella on "Teaching Golf"...

Status
Not open for further replies.

Brian Manzella

Administrator
Winning is not a sometimes thing; it's an all the time thing. You don't win once in a while; you don't do things right once in a while; you do them right all the time. Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing.

There is no room for second place. There is only one place in my game, and that's first place. I have never been on the Top 100 or Top 50 lists, never won National Teacher of The Year, never been on the best seller list, or have never stood on the 18th green when a player of mine won a Major. There are other nice accolades, but they are not what the best strive for. The best strives to be first. It is and always has been an American zeal to be first in anything we do, and to win, and to win, and to win.

Every time a golf instructor goes to ply his trade he's got to teach from the ground up - from the soles of his feet right up to his head. Every inch of him has to teach. Some guys teach with their heads. That's O.K. you've got to be smart to be number one in any business. But more importantly, you've got to teach with your heart, with every fiber of your body. You've got to want to learn better information, and better ways to implement that information everyday. If you're lucky enough to find a guy to teach you with a lot of head and a lot of heart, who never stops learning or improving, you've got a teacher for life.

Running a teaching organization is no different than running any other kind of organization - an army, a political party or a business. The principles are the same. The object is to win - to beat the other guy. Maybe that sounds hard or cruel. I don't think it is.

It is a reality of life that men are competitive and the most competitive games draw the most competitive men. That's why they are there - to compete. To know the rules and objectives when they get in the game. The object is to win fairly, squarely, by the rules - but to win.

And in truth, I've never known a man worth his salt who in the long run, deep down in his heart didn't appreciate the grind, the discipline. There is something in good men that really yearns for discipline and the harsh reality of head to head combat.

I don't say these things because I believe in the "brute" nature of man or that men must be brutalized to be combative. I believe in God, and I believe in human decency. But I firmly believe that any man's finest hour - his greatest fulfillment to all he holds dear - is that moment when he has to work his heart out in a good cause and he's exhausted on the field of battle - victorious.
 
years ago

I had the pleasure of having lunch with Vince Lombardi

circumstances don't matter but, at the restaurant as we sat down a waitress came over

Mr. Lombardi politely said " who is the best waitress in this restaurant?".....a bit shocked she said let me get the manager...before she could walk away, being a bit overwhelmed by the question
....Mr.Lombardi offered this comment..."young lady....you cannot BE the best unless you believe YOU are the best". I will never forget that moment...
 
Last edited:
Would you rather be the best or your best? Or both?

What should you intend?

For yourself or for others or both?

Good thread.
 
Last edited:
not sure

Would you rather be the best or your best? Or both?

What should you intend?

For yourself or for others or both?

Good thread.


paul...not sure i know what "your best" means

and "the best" is usually determined by other people

since Brian started this thread lets use him as an example

lets say Brian is the best he can be NOW ......(NO COMMERCIAL INTENDED)....

after the 168 project is complete...i would think he would be smarter, better etc then he is now

so "your best" is a changing thing..... As far as THE BEST is concerned..well he is not in top 50

or top 25..BUT...(YES I KNOW ITS POLITICAL STUFF) to the person he takes from a 18 hdcp to 3

yes to that person HE is the best.....all subjective. Last thing a week ago i went to golf USA

They have a net ...and a machine to measure things.. i was using a 7 iron..severe back pain

i was consistent at about 135yards and about 63 mph swing speed........so he said if thats YOUR BEST....enjoy what you have ok...8 facet shots on friday back better.....

went there today..7 iron....159....79 mph.........not GREAT..but mY best CHANGED.
 
Last edited:
S

SteveT

Guest
BManz ... great post, but unfortunately maybe only 1% of the 50 million 'golfers' worldwide aspire to meet your criteria for 'winning'. But that is the same for all sports if you think about it.

Most of humanity only want to have 'fun' and socialize in friendship because 'competition' is too stressful for them. Understandable.

Most who 'play' at golf are quite non-athletic in their approach, nursing along their homemade swing and ignorance when putting. Unforgivable..!!!

Effort without competence is just clowning on the golf course .. and you can quote me on that!!! ;)


Edit: Just came across this interesting article on the "ego" which may or may not be helpful in this discussion:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101028113618.htm
 
Last edited:
maybe

BManz ... great post, but unfortunately maybe only 1% of the 50 million 'golfers' worldwide aspire to meet your criteria for 'winning'. But that is the same for all sports if you think about it.

Most of humanity only want to have 'fun' and socialize in friendship because 'competition' is too stressful for them. Understandable.

Most who 'play' at golf are quite non-athletic in their approach, nursing along their homemade swing and ignorance when putting. Unforgivable..!!!

Effort without competence is just clowning on the golf course .. and you can quote me on that!!! ;)




maybe if most instructors made more of an effort to be competent..the 1% would rise dramatically.....

please understand this is just my personal opinion
 
birdie-man's gone right to the heart of it.

Nothing wrong with winning being part of your motivation, but if it's the only thing, then some folks will sell themselves short (because winning matters more to them than how they win) and others will hate themselves (because losing matters more to them than how they lose).

I listened to some Steve Elkington interviews recently. He's as much in thrall to winning down the stretch as anyone, but he knows how fine the line is. I can't imagine many people right now (with the possible exception of Hugh Hefner, or for anyone following the Scottish news, Tommy Sheridan) listening to Steve's stories and wishing that they were Tiger.

Middle age seems to be full of people who are losers, because they let a wee bit early success at school turn their heads. More often, I think it's the geeks and the nerds who never had any "winners" equity when they were kids who learn to motivate themselves and do a great job for its own sake who end up being both successful and fulfilled. And one is as important as the other.

Anyone who thinks The Talent Code is worth a read should also be looking at Fooled by Randomness, or The Black Swan - unless they already appreciate just how precarious and lucky many case studies of success and failure really are. And most people almost certainly don't.

I think it's far more important to be able to look back on what you did and divorce the process from the outcome. If you honestly know that you did a good job, then what could be worse than beating yourself up because someone else snuck in ahead of you? What would you advise your best friend?

I don't agree with parts of Brian's first post above, but I think the broad thrust of what he says about the whys and the hows of teaching is pretty much in line with what I've said here.

I don't see him suddenly arguing that Haney being the winningest coach of the last 10 years makes Haney the best coach of the last 10 years. And I don't see Brian thinking that he'd transform his teaching just by stalking the range on tour and finding a couple of tour pros to put on his resume. What sort of win would justify calling off the search for something better?

Teaching is teaching, and (IMOP) is a process more than an outcome.
 
Haney???

steve..................haney's players have the most wins in the last 10 years..which you say makes him the best coach? with respect i disagree, not that he isn't gooD I am sure very good.. BUT

give me Jordan and Pippen and Rodman....and I win championships with Da BULLS as well

give me Kobe and I win championships with the Lakers as well...............Phil Jackson is a great coach but the best??

not sure about that. Haney had Tiger and Others.....but he also had Barkley?? and we all saw that ugly

scene.......so who is the best?? IMO...there is no best......if you are the best FOR the student you are

teaching then """for that student" you are the best.. Tiger went from Harmon to Haney, Mickelson went from

Rick Smith to Harmon.....Tiger went from Haney to Foley....Adam Scott went from Harmon to Adams brother in law

so who is the best..........Harmon?? Haney?? Smith? or Scotts brother in law???

the answer is....ALL OF THE ABOVE
 
Last edited:
Vince Lombardi teaching golf

Unfortunately in the business of teaching golf to be the best you have to depend on other people to perform.I am considered a good teacher but I have never hit a shot in a tournament for a student.they did the work they should reap the rewards.we are behind the scenes sometimes noticed if the winner mentions your name.There is no way to accurately estimate how much effect you had on your student.I have been teaching for 40 yrs(30,000 lessons)and understand my role-do the research,provide information,be able to show and tell,help the student prepare for all they may encounter,then step back observe,console and counsel .be the best you can for every student and let the others decide who is best.
 

Brian Manzella

Administrator
Explaining the Thesis.

Would you rather be the best or your best? Or both?

They are two very different goals, but they are both goals of mine nonetheless.

BManz ... great post, but unfortunately maybe only 1% of the 50 million 'golfers' worldwide aspire to meet your criteria for 'winning'. But that is the same for all sports if you think about it.

You misunderstood.

To me, to do what I said in reference to Paul above's question, be the best and be acknowledged as such, you would HAVE TO BE ABLE TO BE THE BEST AT TEACHING REGULAR GOLFERS.

You'd have to be the best at teaching the best as well, but you'd better be able to help Mr. Fabersham and his little grandson—today.

Otherwise, you are NOT the best. Period.


maybe if most instructors made more of an effort to be competent..the 1% would rise dramatically....

Exactly.

birdie-man's gone right to the heart of it.

Nothing wrong with winning being part of your motivation, but if it's the only thing, then some folks will sell themselves short (because winning matters more to them than how they win)...

Well, the folks who sell themselves short, ain't the best. Period.

Middle age seems to be full of people who are losers, because they let a wee bit early success at school turn their heads. More often, I think it's the geeks and the nerds who never had any "winners" equity when they were kids who learn to motivate themselves and do a great job for its own sake who end up being both successful and fulfilled.

I was world-class for my age on the drums before I turned 8. In 8th grade I scored 21 touchdowns and had 12 interceptions on the two county champion football teams I played on.

That one doesn't apply to me.

But I hear where ya coming from, my brother.

I think it's far more important to be able to look back on what you did and divorce the process from the outcome. If you honestly know that you did a good job, then what could be worse than beating yourself up because someone else snuck in ahead of you?

No kidding.

But, you have to keep TRYING. Lots of folks can fake it, and "sneak" in ahead of you temporarily.

But those guys rarely win in the end.

What would you advise your best friend?

Well, two of my best friends are Micheal Jacobs and Mike Finney.

And they want to crush the competition.

As a matter of fact, Michael Jacobs was lambasted for saying as much somewhere else. Of course, these same folks think—and sell—that they invented golf.:rolleyes:

I don't see him suddenly arguing that Haney being the winningest coach of the last 10 years makes Haney the best coach of the last 10 years.

Whoa Nellie!

Hank Haney has been a STONE SUCCESS in this business. He has been KING or close to it TWICE in his career, and he has a TV show. He's been on multiple mag covers, written several books, successful ranges.

He has been on both lists since they were invented, been National Teacher of The Year.

As stone cold champion of the world in his prime.

Not taking ANYTHING away from him for ANY of that.

And I don't see Brian thinking that he'd transform his teaching just by stalking the range on tour and finding a couple of tour pros to put on his resume. What sort of win would justify calling off the search for something better?

I never "stalked" in my life. I DO NOT hard sell, and I have NEVER walked the line.

But I am going out on Tour next year, with the idea of getting a couple of new tour players I can help.

Mark it down.

Teaching is teaching, and (IMOP) is a process more than an outcome.[/quote]

Unfortunately in the business of teaching golf to be the best you have to depend on other people to perform.I am considered a good teacher but I have never hit a shot in a tournament for a student.they did the work they should reap the rewards.we are behind the scenes sometimes noticed if the winner mentions your name.There is no way to accurately estimate how much effect you had on your student.I have been teaching for 40 yrs(30,000 lessons)and understand my role-do the research,provide information,be able to show and tell,help the student prepare for all they may encounter,then step back observe,console and counsel .be the best you can for every student and let the others decide who is best.

Yeah, but it IS a winnable game.
 

Brian Manzella

Administrator
Lombardi's famous quotes must be kept in context as they were mostly from his football experience.

Are you kidding?

The speech has been copied, and put on the wall of more folks than any other like it in history.

I don't need it on my wall, I hadn't read it in years until yesterday, and I did all of it anyway.

I'm sure he probably had a losing record in arguments with his wife.

Better record than Farve.
 
Exactly.



Well, the folks who sell themselves short, ain't the best. Period.



I was world-class for my age on the drums before I turned 8. In 8th grade I scored 21 touchdowns and had 12 interceptions on the two county champion football teams I played on.

That one doesn't apply to me.

But I hear where ya coming from, my brother.



No kidding.

But, you have to keep TRYING. Lots of folks can fake it, and "sneak" in ahead of you temporarily.

But those guys rarely win in the end.



Well, two of my best friends are Micheal Jacobs and Mike Finney.

And they want to crush the competition.

As a matter of fact, Michael Jacobs was lambasted for saying as much somewhere else. Of course, these same folks think—and sell—that they invented golf.:rolleyes:



Whoa Nellie!

Hank Haney has been a STONE SUCCESS in this business. He has been KING or close to it TWICE in his career, and he has a TV show. He's been on multiple mag covers, written several books, successful ranges.

He has been on both lists since they were invented, been National Teacher of The Year.

As stone cold champion of the world in his prime.

Not taking ANYTHING away from him for ANY of that.



I never "stalked" in my life. I DO NOT hard sell, and I have NEVER walked the line.

But I am going out on Tour next year, with the idea of getting a couple of new tour players I can help.

Mark it down.


Good stuff that.

I totally agree with the point about keeping trying - and there's plenty of evidence of that on this site.

I also think that those who are best at keeping trying are the people who have a whole bunch of goals and ambitions that they can fall back on, or tick off, even if they don't "win" a particular contest.

In some ways (if not all) I think Tiger has been a good example of the overlap. He's obviously got a target number of majors to crown himself GOAT. What's less obvious to some people (present company excepted) is his obsession with just about every aspect of his game and what he's willing to do in the short to medium term to make "improvements".

I think someone like Colin Montgomerie was a great player. Someone who should have won majors and had the game to do it. But I always got the impression that, in his prime, he was basically happy with his level of play and was waiting (albeit anxiously) for the wins to come. And I get the impression that for him, it really was a black and white issue of winning or losing. And he clearly hated losing. In fact, I think he's said that he hates losing MORE than he enjoys winning. And he's kind-of ambivalent on the actual act of hitting a ball well. He more or less says that competition was just a form of one-upmanship for him. I don't remember many losing interviews with Monty where he could articulate the stuff that Woods routinely does - that he was happy with how he was playing, or that he was getting better and that results would eventually take care of themselves.This isn't meant as a knock on Monty. As far as I'm concerned, he's been a great player even without winning a major. But I think he might have done better if he'd been wired a bit differently.

I like Woods' approach much better, as well as his record. But I do wonder whether there was ever a point at which he CONSCIOUSLY reneged on his goal of catching Fred Funk in FIRs?

I LIKE your take on Haney too. Sorry that I pre-empted your views on him. I took him as an example because I think he's the poster boy for wild-success-whilst-drowning-in-criticism. Foley might be "lucky" to emulate Hank in that regard. Obviously, you would be well-pleased to have those accomplishments as your own. But I still don't see you taking to "Haney methods" to try and achieve "Haney results".

I always loved an Ian Woosnam quote about playing Faldo. He said "I respect everyone I play against, but I don't look up to anyone but myself." That works brilliantly for me at so many levels.

And I know you're not a stalker or a line-walker. If you do give teaching on tour a serious shot, then I hope you're successful. But my point is also that I'm not going to turn into one of those critics who says, "What does that Manzella know? He's never taught a tour/ money-list/ major winner." Just do your thing, and that ought to be enough.
 
paul...not sure i know what "your best" means

and "the best" is usually determined by other people

since Brian started this thread lets use him as an example

lets say Brian is the best he can be NOW ......(NO COMMERCIAL INTENDED)....

after the 168 project is complete...i would think he would be smarter, better etc then he is now

so "your best" is a changing thing..... As far as THE BEST is concerned..well he is not in top 50

or top 25..BUT...(YES I KNOW ITS POLITICAL STUFF) to the person he takes from a 18 hdcp to 3

yes to that person HE is the best.....all subjective. Last thing a week ago i went to golf USA

They have a net ...and a machine to measure things.. i was using a 7 iron..severe back pain

i was consistent at about 135yards and about 63 mph swing speed........so he said if thats YOUR BEST....enjoy what you have ok...8 facet shots on friday back better.....

went there today..7 iron....159....79 mph.........not GREAT..but mY best CHANGED.

In reality someone always is the best though. (err probably?)

In theory 2 people could be the same...(performance/results-wise) but with measuring, yes- how would you measure that.

Let's just say it is easiER when you are doing something more numerically measurable.

Re: you above post (right above this one), what ever do you mean, Howard.....?.....??
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top