What a "real" golf Lesson is—and isn't —by Brian Manzella

Status
Not open for further replies.

Brian Manzella

Administrator
I'll never forget her.

She was just a typical lady in her late 20's or early 30's who wanted to learn to play golf. She had average coordination, and average strength. She was a very good student, however, listening intently, trying her very best.

It was way back in the day of my now 26-year teaching career. Best I can remember, about 1991. Almost four years into my post-Ben Doyle-style Golfing Machine teaching. Back when I videoed every lesson and gave the student a VHS copy when they left. Back when I charged $40 an hour. When a ten-lesson package was a whopping $320 dollars. When I taught exclusively at The New Orleans City Park Driving Range. Back when "the range" had over twenty independent instructors. Back when if I didn't out teach every other teacher by a lot, I couldn't pay my car note.

When I started teaching, a lesson was what I still call a "real" golf lesson. The student warmed up, told me about their golf game, and hit some shots with their "stock" motion. No matter who they were. Whether they were a PGA Tour player, or a raw beginner. I would look, evaluate, and come up with a game plan. Then I would go to work making the changes I deemed necessary for contact and ball-flight improvement.

I could help almost anyone from the very beginning. Just pure natural teaching ability, a really good eye, and the knowledge I gained from having to teach myself from hacker to pro.

But, my quest to become the best ever led me to Ben Doyle and The Golfing Machine. It was obvious the book was the best information available at the time, and Ben was the best teacher who used the book. So, in 1987 I went to begin to learn all I could from Ben.

When I first got back from Carmel, California, I was—like many other teachers who go to learn from Ben—basically a parrot, albeit one with a Y'at accent.

I videoed every lesson—like Ben, I taught all but the very best players short-to-long, little chip, chip, pitch, punch, then full swing—like Ben. I even started to stutter a little.

Most folks got better. Some way better than they would have pre-Ben. But there was this lady…

She wasn’t the first, or the only. But, for whatever reason, it was a Epiphany.

She had taken a ten-lesson package, and she was on lesson number ten. She got to go right through the bag hitting full shots. She was better than she was when she started. She could chip and pitch adequately, but something was not there. And I knew it.

For reasons known only to the man upstairs, most folks have a very poor memory. I may not remember everything very well, but some things I remember perfectly. In this case, I was recalling ladies just like this one, pre-Ben. Or more exactly, pre-Short to long.

I knew this lady did not get my best. I was a better teacher than this product. If I just would have given this lady ten regular lessons, ten "Real" lessons, ten lessons without a “lesson plan,” ten lessons just helping her make a better swing, she would've been light years better.

It was the beginning of a long draw down.

In retrospect, a draw-down that took way too long.

I give “real” golf lessons these days. It took probably until 2005 or 2006 to fully go “Back to the Future,” back to why I started teaching in the first place. I started teaching golf because I had ability, and it took almost twenty years to really learn all the useful information that Ben taught me, and which information just wasn’t right for me and my teaching. Twenty years to really learn The Golfing Machine, and find out how smart Homer Kelley was, and how smart he wasn’t. Twenty years and thousands of students, all over the country, on the PGA Tour, juniors, seniors, fourth-flight club champs. Twenty years of ladies just like the one I can’t remember her name. Twenty years to make thousands of mistakes, and finally figure out how close I was, in my own swing and in my teaching back in 1987 when I took my first plane ride to see Ben.

I could have never got to where I am without this lady. In her own way, she steered me a bit, a help me help people play better golf.

You see, a “real” golf lesson is not “stack and tilt,” “one-plane/two-plane,” “12-1 & 12-2.” These are methods. So is "short-to-long" or the "basic motion curriculum."

Not everyone looks good in black. Not everyone’s feet fit well in Addias shoes. Not everyone needs to hit a fade, or a draw. And if I want to be the very best, I have to be able to help everyone, or anyone. Whether I have just one lesson, one post, or hundred of hours to do it.

I can do it now.

I wonder if she still plays golf?
 
I'll never forget her.

She was just a typical lady in her late 20's or early 30's who wanted to learn to play golf. She had average coordination, and average strength. She was a very good student, however, listening intently, trying her very best.

It was way back in the day of my now 26-year teaching career. Best I can remember, about 1991. Almost four years into my post-Ben Doyle-style Golfing Machine teaching. Back when I videoed every lesson and gave the student a VHS copy when they left. Back when I charged $40 an hour. When a ten-lesson package was a whopping $320 dollars. When I taught exclusively at The New Orleans City Park Driving Range. Back when "the range" had over twenty independent instructors. Back when if I didn't out teach every other teacher by a lot, I couldn't pay my car note.

When I started teaching, a lesson was what I still call a "real" golf lesson. The student warmed up, told me about their golf game, and hit some shots with their "stock" motion. No matter who they were. Whether they were a PGA Tour player, or a raw beginner. I would look, evaluate, and come up with a game plan. Then I would go to work making the changes I deemed necessary for contact and ball-flight improvement.

I could help almost anyone from the very beginning. Just pure natural teaching ability, a really good eye, and the knowledge I gained from having to teach myself from hacker to pro.

But, my quest to become the best ever led me to Ben Doyle and The Golfing Machine. It was obvious the book was the best information available at the time, and Ben was the best teacher who used the book. So, in 1987 I went to begin to learn all I could from Ben.

When I first got back from Carmel, California, I was—like many other teachers who go to learn from Ben—basically a parrot, albeit one with a Y'at accent.

I videoed every lesson—like Ben, I taught all but the very best players short-to-long, little chip, chip, pitch, punch, then full swing—like Ben. I even started to stutter a little.

Most folks got better. Some way better than they would have pre-Ben. But there was this lady…

She wasn’t the first, or the only. But, for whatever reason, it was a Epiphany.

She had taken a ten-lesson package, and she was on lesson number ten. She got to go right through the bag hitting full shots. She was better than she was when she started. She could chip and pitch adequately, but something was not there. And I knew it.

For reasons known only to the man upstairs, most folks have a very poor memory. I may not remember everything very well, but some things I remember perfectly. In this case, I was recalling ladies just like this one, pre-Ben. Or more exactly, pre-Short to long.

I knew this lady did not get my best. I was a better teacher than this product. If I just would have given this lady ten regular lessons, ten "Real" lessons, ten lessons without a “lesson plan,” ten lessons just helping her make a better swing, she would've been light years better.

It was the beginning of a long draw down.

In retrospect, a draw-down that took way too long.

I give “real” golf lessons these days. It took probably until 2005 or 2006 to fully go “Back to the Future,” back to why I started teaching in the first place. I started teaching golf because I had ability, and it took almost twenty years to really learn all the useful information that Ben taught me, and which information just wasn’t right for me and my teaching. Twenty years to really learn The Golfing Machine, and find out how smart Homer Kelley was, and how smart he wasn’t. Twenty years and thousands of students, all over the country, on the PGA Tour, juniors, seniors, fourth-flight club champs. Twenty years of ladies just like the one I can’t remember her name. Twenty years to make thousands of mistakes, and finally figure out how close I was, in my own swing and in my teaching back in 1987 when I took my first plane ride to see Ben.

I could have never got to where I am without this lady. In her own way, she steered me a bit, a help me help people play better golf.

You see, a “real” golf lesson is not “stack and tilt,” “one-plane/two-plane,” “12-1 & 12-2.” These are methods. So is "short-to-long" or the "basic motion curriculum."

Not everyone looks good in black. Not everyone’s feet fit well in Addias shoes. Not everyone needs to hit a fade, or a draw. And if I want to be the very best, I have to be able to help everyone, or anyone. Whether I have just one lesson, one post, or hundred of hours to do it.

I can do it now.

I wonder if she still plays golf?

Calling Charles Barkley:D. Seriuously can we know what Homer Kelley got right and what he got wrong . Just a percentage will do 70:30 ?
 
I hear what you are saying Brian, i've had years of lessons, of not REALLY being helped. Just a tip here or there, but to know what you do, you have to go out and see what everyone else is teaching, and take from it what is useful.

It is what I do with root canals treatments :eek: (sorry for anyone squeamish). I looked at what the best guys did and thought, the instruments they used, and devised a way to do it that I KNOW works and works well.

At the same time I am not so cocksure of myself that I won't accept new information when it comes my way.

Keep it going mate, and don't forget us lot when you go BIG TIME :D

Looking forward to our weblesson.

Gareth
 
Brian,

In all honesty I've never really known how to take you. Sometimes you seem abrasive, sometimes simply confident, sometimes happy-go-lucky. I chalked it up as being a side effect of getting to know someone indirectly through the internet. Never seeing your body language or voice tone, I honestly wasn't sure how you would be to learn from (in person).

I think your little article here was exceptional. I'd like to think I could find an instructor who thinks like this one day. I think your sincere memory of that lady, and how you have interpreted your experience is a really positive thing and I bet that is reflected in your teachings. Very cool.
 
Nice post Brian, very insightful as always.

Ok so you have developed a better way to fix people (quicker) than cookie-cutter basic motion curriculum. Tell us what these ideologies are by using a case study as, an example, any student you like!

This is what I found using Basic Motion Curriculum:

I could get a beginner to compress the ball of a grass lie - producing correct 3 dimensional impact and satisfy the 3 imperatives within 1 hour, sometimes up to a pitch but often just up to a strong chip. Before you say that's not proper basic motion curriculum I use the term a bit more liberally than most.

Now the other Instructors at our golf school would get the beginner to tee the ball up 2 inches off the mat, make them create some kind of pivot motion in both directions - where the student moves all over it and then flips at the ball which is 2 foot off the ground and then holds some kind of finish pose which is as false and contrived as a Zimbabwe election. I know which method I would prefer - However I also know that the BMC can be speeded up but I don't have it systematized as yet and I am still experimenting with different approaches.

I think BMC could be called "Basic Framework Curriculum" where you have a framework but not the details filled in. It is up to the talent of the coach to fill in these details to match the student without jeopardizing the imperatives, as quickly and efficiently as possible. These other band-aid, quick-fix, fix the ball flight as soon as possible regardless of what components they are putting into the swing teachers never really fix people long term because they never give their student the "framework" just a lot of details badly glued together.

I would still say to any aspiring coach - or non- TGM coach to try basic motion curriculum against their own method or system (if they have one) and I bet they will achieve better and faster results using BMC.... then move on from that point and develop a teaching system that work for them.

Problem is they might have to look different than the teaching manual robot teachers for a while and show a bit of conviction in what they want to achieve.:)
 

Brian Manzella

Administrator
You asked for it—You got it!

Ok so you have developed a better way to fix people (quicker) than cookie-cutter basic motion curriculum. Tell us what these ideologies are by using a case study as, an example, any student you like!

Of course, in many ways, that is what this web site is all about: what I do with students.

I will be doing some LIVE LESSON videos, and also giving some web lesson that folks can pay to watch. I am sure from your post you have never seen me teach. Most teachers have never seen anyone who can give a really good "real" golf lesson in the whole life.

I would give lessons live at ANY teaching seminar that asked me, but none have.

This is what I found...I could get a beginner to compress the ball of a grass lie - producing correct 3 dimensional impact and satisfy the 3 imperatives within 1 hour, sometimes up to a pitch but often just up to a strong chip...

More often than not, I'll have them hitting the driver quite well in the same hour.

Now the other Instructors at our golf school would get the beginner to tee the ball up 2 inches off the mat, make them create some kind of pivot motion in both directions - where the student moves all over it and then flips at the ball which is 2 foot off the ground and then holds some kind of finish pose which is as false and contrived as a Zimbabwe election. I know which method I would prefer

I have NO IDEA who these teachers are, but surely you realize that I think that controlling the plane line, the path, low point, clubface motion, loading and unloading, are all things I teach.

You—or anyone else for that matter—can do what ever you like short-to-long, and I'll run you off the lesson tee.

My IMPACTS will even look better.

Did you read the article? I DID all of this. With Ben's stuff, with the book literalists stuff, and I found a better way.

At some point, everyone needs to learn to make a nice little chip or pitch with good forward lean.

But absolutely not at first.

These other band-aid, quick-fix, fix the ball flight as soon as possible regardless of what components they are putting into the swing teachers never really fix people long term because they never give their student the "framework" just a lot of details badly glued together.

These is a typical answer of someone who needs 4 hours to do what should take one.

I think more about what particular DIFFERENT components are being put into the swing—and it what order—than any teacher I have ever seen.

What's the difference between my students now, and then?

They shoot (much) lower scores, because they hit is more where they are looking.

Isn't that the point?

I would still say to any aspiring coach - or non- TGM coach to try basic motion curriculum against their own method or system (if they have one) and I bet they will achieve better and faster results using BMC...

Maybe they couldn't teach a lick to start with.

This is the flawed logic that is responsible for the "one-plane/two-plane" takeover with the club pros.

Most were really bad and had no system or method. Now they are slightly better and have a method.

Like I said....most people (you included) have never seen a really good "real" golf lesson—or teacher.
 

Brian Manzella

Administrator
Sometimes you seem abrasive

Like the post above, because my blood is boiling?

sometimes simply confident

Everytime I need a confidence builder, I go to a seminar and watch someone who is supposed to be a good teacher teach.

sometimes happy-go-lucky

Like I have said before, put Haney or Leadbetter in the spots I have been in, and they've quit long ago.

I think your little article here was exceptional. I'd like to think I could find an instructor who thinks like this one day. I think your sincere memory of that lady, and how you have interpreted your experience is a really positive thing and I bet that is reflected in your teachings. Very cool.

Thank you very much.

I chalked it up as being a side effect of getting to know someone indirectly through the internet. Never seeing your body language or voice tone, I honestly wasn't sure how you would be to learn from (in person).

I am going to start videoing myself reading these.
 

Jim Kobylinski

Super Moderator
Here here.....

Right when i started to "get good" before my injury and before i stopped teaching....my teaching basically came down to the following:

1) Is the ball going where you want it to go (direction/ballflight) ?
2) Is the ball going as far as you think it should or as far as it has in the past?

If you can answer 1 and 2 with a "basically yes" you don't need lessons. Go putt and practice your short game more and you'll get loads better than listening to anyone else.

If you can't answer 1 or 2 with a "basically yes" then it's my job to know what you need to do and explain it to you in a way that you can get that "basically yes" answer. I have learned enough to know that there aren't many things that matter except good contact and ball flight; everything else, as brian says, is "showbiz."

Take for instance a good student of mine, low handicapper hits a really low ball and plays with a modified NSA type pattern. He'll always be a low ball hitter, i've become smart enough to realize that and just get him good contact and a ballflight he wants (small draw) and just teach him, when he needs too, how to hit it a bit higher. Other than that, i've just told him to play irons that launch higher (more GI type) and bend the lofts weaker to accomodate his preferred ballflight. You know what? I bet he gets 2-4 shots better after our last mini-range session together hitting balls than all the previous lessons i gave him.
 
I will be doing some LIVE LESSON videos, and also giving some web lesson that folks can pay to watch. I am sure from your post you have never seen me teach. Most teachers have never seen anyone who can give a really good "real" golf lesson in the whole life.
I'd definately buy those:)

You—or anyone else for that matter—can do what ever you like short-to-long, and I'll run you off the lesson tee.
Your missing my point Brian. I said I started with short-to-long and have developed from there. I don't use it as much as I used to - but I still believe it is a great starting point to develop your coaching system.

At some point, everyone needs to learn to make a nice little chip or pitch with good forward lean.

But absolutely not at first
.

What should they learn first then? "Bake a cup cake before you can bake a cake" - direct Ben Doyle quote

These is a typical answer of someone who needs 4 hours to do what should take one.
Maybe, is that not more experience and experimentation rather than know-how. I'd rather know what needs to happen and work on orgainising that information into an easy, workable system than have no idea of laws of physics and force & motion. You can't tell me that TGM hasn't helped you form the system you use at this present time.

This is the flawed logic that is responsible for the "one-plane/two-plane" takeover with the club pros.

Most were really bad and had no system or method. Now they are slightly better and have a method.

No they are worse because they are using methods that have no grounding in science and based purely on opinion. eg Ben said to sam and sam said to jack etc... Doesn't have to be TGM based science but has to be science based

Like I said....most people (you included) have never seen a really good "real" golf lesson—or teacher.

I suppose Ben Doyle, Martin Hall, Jim Suitte, Butch Harmon, Denis Pugh and Steve Bann are no good then - iv'e seen them all teach.
 

Brian Manzella

Administrator
I'd definately buy those:)

I promise they'll be worth every penny.


I started with short-to-long and have developed from there. I don't use it as much as I used to - but I still believe it is a great starting point to develop your coaching system.

Sure.

I just STRONGLY believe there is better way.


What should they learn first then? "Bake a cup cake before you can bake a cake" - direct Ben Doyle quote

Whatever it is THEY need.

You really need to learn to make a full-ish swing first.

Why?

Because they DO already, and the WILL if they don't. So fix it. And if you do it just right, they'll have perfect alignments.


You can't tell me that TGM hasn't helped you form the system you use at this present time.

When have I never said that. Or given Ben credit.

Like I have said before, my Dad wasn't perfect, but I loved him anyway.


Doesn't have to be TGM based science but has to be science based.

Like the D-plane. ;)
 
What a "real" golf Lesson is — and isn't

Brian,

I just wonder, when a student shows his swing, do you almost immediately feel, almost as ‘from the inside’, what is wrong and instantly know the cure? If so, is this not only possible for an instructor who takes the very big risk to experiment constantly with almost everything under the sun, and hence can feel the various swings of student, good or bad? :cool:

In contrast I feel a method teacher is not really interested in his students but rather more in promoting his famous method and like a preacher tries to convince his student mesmerizing him with cleverly constructed slogans. Golfers are a gullible lot and have really no defense when confronted with such a golf instructor. :rolleyes:
 
1) Is the ball going where you want it to go (direction/ballflight) ?
2) Is the ball going as far as you think it should or as far as it has in the past?

If you can answer 1 and 2 with a "basically yes" you don't need lessons. Go putt and practice your short game more and you'll get loads better than listening to anyone else.

Jim,
Well said. . .if you can hit the ball in the right direction, most of the time, with an appropriate amount of distance. . . practice your putting and chipping. I have played with guys whose swings look horrible, but they know where they hit it and goodness, can they chip and putt. Beware of the low handicapper with an ugly swing--because this guy can play golf. . .not play golf-swing.

Not trying to devalue the importance of a solid, repeatable swing--it is because of Brian's teaching (NSA and SD) that mine is much more solid and repeatable. . .but if I am really going to get to the next level, it is chipping and putting that will do it.

Also, Brian, your enthusiasm and passion is a wonderful example of how life should be lived. I'm sure your a good teacher because of your knowledge, but I'm betting what makes you a great teacher is your will.
 

Brian Manzella

Administrator
I just wonder, when a student shows his swing, do you almost immediately feel, almost as ‘from the inside’, what is wrong and instantly know the cure?

Absolutely.

When I was a young very good teacher, I fixed the pivot and ball flight very just by using my eye. I could always just SEE it.

I only taught average when I tried to shoe-horn folks into patterns. And I tried 1000's of them.

I became the teacher I am today because I let myself do it "from the inside," obviously buoyed by my 26-years of research.


If so, is this not only possible for an instructor who takes the very big risk to experiment constantly with almost everything under the sun, and hence can feel the various swings of student, good or bad? :cool:

Absolutely.

In contrast I feel a method teacher is not really interested in his students but rather more in promoting his famous method and like a preacher tries to convince his student mesmerizing him with cleverly constructed slogans.

Positively.

Golfers are a gullible lot and have really no defense when confronted with such a golf instructor. :rolleyes:

Correct.
 

Jim Kobylinski

Super Moderator


Jim,
Well said. . .if you can hit the ball in the right direction, most of the time, with an appropriate amount of distance. . . practice your putting and chipping. I have played with guys whose swings look horrible, but they know where they hit it and goodness, can they chip and putt. Beware of the low handicapper with an ugly swing--because this guy can play golf. . .not play golf-swing.

Not trying to devalue the importance of a solid, repeatable swing--it is because of Brian's teaching (NSA and SD) that mine is much more solid and repeatable. . .but if I am really going to get to the next level, it is chipping and putting that will do it.

Also, Brian, your enthusiasm and passion is a wonderful example of how life should be lived. I'm sure your a good teacher because of your knowledge, but I'm betting what makes you a great teacher is your will.

I will caveat my statement that if people have hacked together swings that are relying on a big sway or some kind of giant flip but answer "basically yes" to both my questions really are kind of lying about the first question and we'd work on the pivot. It's an instructor's call or my call really to see, after you hit balls, whether or not you are lying to both yourself and me ;)
 
Some things I need to say

We'll see how this goes cause it sure ain't gonna be pretty :(

Brian,

As someone who's supported and followed this site (I have all the videos and one live lesson w/ you) for over a year now I'm asking these questions from an inquisitive stand point, not a condescending one.

1) Why all the "hate" for Ben Doyle and TGM? By your accounts your trip to see Ben changed your game F-O-R-E-V-E-R. Yet, at every opportunity you highlight how your "patterns" are superior to Ben and the machine. Could be true, not sure I'm not the expert, but why point it out? You look like the kids in high school who's parents had more money and wore the designer clothes. :cool:

2) How may students, in your opinion, leave your live lessons hitting it better than when they got there? And with tangible things to work on post lesson?

3) Jim K - Who the hell every answers "yes" to questions 1 & 2?

Sorry guys, been a 'lil ornery lately - forgive me!

P.S. - Does Mandrin play golf? What's his handicap!!!!!!!!!!
 

Jim Kobylinski

Super Moderator
2) How may students, in your opinion, leave your live lessons hitting it better than when they got there? And with tangible things to work on post lesson?

99%, it was a guarrantee that i had/have in every lesson that you won't leave hitting it worse. If you do, i simply didn't have the ability to get you to do what i wanted you to do and thus you didn't get better. However i did fail a long time student towards the end, i just didn't have the "goods" to get him any better. However up until that point, i did. So thats why i give a 99%.

3) Jim K - Who the hell every answers "yes" to questions 1 & 2?

I have give lessons to a few very talented amatuers locally and also a few who play/played on the hooters tour and nationwide tour; 4 to be exact. 2 out of the 4, didn't need anything, they were the nationwide tour players who i got hooked up with through a friend of a friend. I gave them some very simple tests and they passed with flying colors, all they wanted was some tips on how to absolutely avoid a "left" shot. Then all i did was give 1 a putting lesson and the other didn't need that, had a great stroke. Only reason why that person isn't on the tour today is because he hasn't figured out how to handle the pressure.

Also, generally the lower the handicap the more 2) is a yes and the 1) is more of a maybe. Some are good and we just tweak a little, others need a semi-major tweak and then they're back to normal.

IMO good players with golf swings are like teeter totters, you move from side to side trying to balance a good pattern. At times you will overcorrect and the teeter will totter and it takes someone with a good eye to get it to go the other way and then help balance you back out.
 

Kevin Shields

Super Moderator
I love TGM, but I struggle with the idea that there are many club players who want a lesson and would be satisfied with chip, pitch, punch.
 

Michael Jacobs

Super Moderator
We'll see how this goes cause it sure ain't gonna be pretty :(


1) Why all the "hate" for Ben Doyle and TGM? By your accounts your trip to see Ben changed your game F-O-R-E-V-E-R. Yet, at every opportunity you highlight how your "patterns" are superior to Ben and the machine. Could be true, not sure I'm not the expert, but why point it out? You look like the kids in high school who's parents had more money and wore the designer clothes. :cool:

'Hate' is a little extreme: the man attends every summit, picks ben up at the airport, drives him around, feeds him salmon, participates in everything that exists. Brian and I independently came together because of the golfing machine - it was by far the best information available at the time and Ben was the best teacher available at the time. Time has past and the industry demands the best and we have excelled to a whole new level, in our opinion and in many others - the best indeed. Sometimes we like to look back and reminisce and share with the info board.
 
We'll see how this goes cause it sure ain't gonna be pretty :(

Brian,

As someone who's supported and followed this site (I have all the videos and one live lesson w/ you) for over a year now I'm asking these questions from an inquisitive stand point, not a condescending one.

1) Why all the "hate" for Ben Doyle and TGM? By your accounts your trip to see Ben changed your game F-O-R-E-V-E-R. Yet, at every opportunity you highlight how your "patterns" are superior to Ben and the machine. Could be true, not sure I'm not the expert, but why point it out? You look like the kids in high school who's parents had more money and wore the designer clothes. :cool:
2mongoose,

TGM has been and still is considered by some to be the ultimate pinnacle of golf. This, if generally accepted, would definitely curtail any further advancement.

The very famous Isaac Newton became, after his death, for quite some time, a hindrance to further scientific advancement.

In both cases for the same reason - their followers considered that all was said and done. Any new deviating ideas are/were treated with resistance and suspicion.

Golf however is by no means static but rather a dynamic human endeavor, not science, but basically feel and it can’t be encapsulated into a formula.

Progress is made only by constantly looking for new and hopefully better ways - a basic activity, fundamentally inherent to human nature.

Let’s keep the windows open to let in freely the precious fresh air whenever it seems present - there seems indeed to be so little of it around. ;)
 
that's cool.

but more realistic question.


WHEN IS MY NEXT WEB LESSON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :eek:



I'm getting sooooo much better. thanks brian.


shot 2 over today.


but then again...my short game was pretty spot on today.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top