Brian Manzella
Administrator
Why I don't teach a "Method," but I have a Method
by Brian Manzella, PGA, GSED
I know what a "Method" teacher is, because I used to be one. A method teacher teaches a student to make a certain golf swing, or two, exactly the same way they would teach any other student. I remember the story a Golf Pro told me about not going to teaching seminars and instead visiting two teachers a year to observe them.
He was telling me about his experience that previous year. He went to two very famous teachers. They are both on every "top" list in the magazines. But, that wasn't the reason he went to observe these particular two. They were chosen because they both purported to be teachers who fit the swing to the golfer.
One of these instructors had two "method" swings he claimed to use, along with mixed versions of the two. The other, a "Golfing Machine" instructor, just claimed to utilize what the golfer had and "balanced out" the flaws.
But, instead of what he had hoped to see in his visits, he saw the near opposite when he actually witnessed these two teachers teach multiple lessons to a variety of golfers—they just taught everybody the same thing. And they did this, according to the studious pro there to learn, "the exact same way" as well.
Without throwing anyone "under the bus," here is a short list of method teachers. Ernest Jones, Alex Morrison, Jimmy Ballard, David Leadbetter, Ben Doyle, Hank Haney, Jim Hardy, and whoever uses The Golfing Machine as an instruction book and not a reference resource.
By 2003, the starting point of my "Manzella Golf Forum," I was about an 50% method teacher.
Now, the number is close to zero.
The Manzella Matrix isn't even a Method, per se. It simply born itself out of the need to explain the Method I used to teach students without a Method.
First, I watch their swing and notice their "D plane," which is the plane formed by the ball at address, the true face angle at impact (where a magnetic lie angle tool would point), and the true path of the club at impact. This is the plane the ball travels on until wind or gravity interrupt. And I observe closely the elements that are creating this D plane. I watch the look of their motions vs. the look of the ball flight, and how they use their pivots. Where is the ball position? Where are they aiming?
Of course Hank Haney would tell you he does the very same things.
But...
A method teacher like Haney or Ballard will then figure out what things the student is doing that are not part of their method. And then they start the process of "conforming" them to their ideal model.
So does Ben Doyle.
Now Ben taught me, and I love him very much, and he is a great teacher, and trust me, Haney and Ballard are in the top 1% of all instructors, but that just ain't me folks, and it never will be.
Because teaching any method will leave way too many golfers with a pattern that is just not best for them. In other words, I don't teach a method because, quite simply, my goal of being the best golf teacher who ever lived, has no chance with one or two patterns in my toolbox.
I will say that if you are going to be a method teacher, then you might want to choose a method that will make your talented students look like the golfers who are in the Hall-of-Fame.
Leadbetter's 80's and 90's method looked very unorthodox when done as written, and so does Ballard's and Hardy's. Haney's look the most orthodox of the "media darling" teachers, but Ben's would fit in any Hall.
Orthodox is orthodox because it worked the best over time. But it is hard to sell orthodox. I have no problem with unorthodox if it works. And I have wound up with some very unique solutions over the years because it doesn't scare me to try anything.
Being a non-method teacher is a lot harder on the teacher, though.
Because then, the teacher's teaching ability is exposed. A method teacher can always say, "Well, he just needs to be more like the model." Someone who is trying to sell "custom" better get results.
My number two pet peeve is teachers who teach some wacky pattern, and try to pass it off as orthodox. Look at Hardy's pictures in his book. The ones of him, posed or not, look as far from "Hall of Fame" as I've ever seen. If Ben Hogan's right arm is in the exact position pre-imapct as Hardy claims, then Anthony Ravelli is a hack.
But I have no problem with any pattern any teacher teaches if it works as explained. The problem with figuring that out is the "Teacher's Dichotomy."
There is what the teacher says to do, what the student thinks the teacher says to do, and what the student actually does. I guess you could fact check a method teacher with a really good 3D machine, but the "troubleshooters" aren't lining up for that anytime soon.
My number one pet peeve is poor students trying some wacky unorthodox stuff, like the very forward, very high hands, with the lawn mower back swing, and the 11° inside-out "straight ball." My comrade in arms Mike Jacobs and I really don't mind the business we get fixing this junk, but we feel really bad for the student's wasted time, effort and money.
I like to treat my lessons as a jazz musician would playing a piece. Never the same way twice, but good all the time. There are some things that my first lessons seem to have in common, though. First I look around, then I do some archeology to find out the origins of their maladies. Then I try to figure out the one move or shot that there should be no way they could do with their current pattern, and get them to do that.
But, there is one concept I really get the most use out of.
"The behavior that is rewarded is the behavior you will get."
I learned that from an old college professor of mine, who wrote a book on it called "The Greatest Management Principle in the World." Michael Leboeuf missed a couple early classes and told us we'd all get A's or B's, and wouldn't have to show up anymore, but he wanted to teach us this one concept from his new books he was going travel around promoting.
Boy was that golden.
My golf instruction version is simply this:
"If you want a element of a golf swing to change, take away the reward the golfer gets for doing it."
Works like a charm.
It is a large part of my teaching method, just like making them "look" more like a golfer, and making lessons fun.
But I am not a method teacher. I am a teacher.
by Brian Manzella, PGA, GSED
I know what a "Method" teacher is, because I used to be one. A method teacher teaches a student to make a certain golf swing, or two, exactly the same way they would teach any other student. I remember the story a Golf Pro told me about not going to teaching seminars and instead visiting two teachers a year to observe them.
He was telling me about his experience that previous year. He went to two very famous teachers. They are both on every "top" list in the magazines. But, that wasn't the reason he went to observe these particular two. They were chosen because they both purported to be teachers who fit the swing to the golfer.
One of these instructors had two "method" swings he claimed to use, along with mixed versions of the two. The other, a "Golfing Machine" instructor, just claimed to utilize what the golfer had and "balanced out" the flaws.
But, instead of what he had hoped to see in his visits, he saw the near opposite when he actually witnessed these two teachers teach multiple lessons to a variety of golfers—they just taught everybody the same thing. And they did this, according to the studious pro there to learn, "the exact same way" as well.
Without throwing anyone "under the bus," here is a short list of method teachers. Ernest Jones, Alex Morrison, Jimmy Ballard, David Leadbetter, Ben Doyle, Hank Haney, Jim Hardy, and whoever uses The Golfing Machine as an instruction book and not a reference resource.
Two things to clarify about the list. One—Ben Doyle is a method teacher but doesn't use The Golfing Machine as an instruction book. Two—this list includes some very good teachers as well.
I used to be on that list, so to speak. I was a method teacher. In about 1988 I was 95% a method teacher. Meaning that 5% of the time, I just tried to get the student to hit the ball better by adjusting what needed adjusting.
By 2003, the starting point of my "Manzella Golf Forum," I was about an 50% method teacher.
Now, the number is close to zero.
Why?
Because my students beat it out of me.
Results. At the end of the day, I am a "results based" person. If something isn't working, I "try, try again," but when it is deemed junk, out the window it goes. Never forgotten, but definitely in file "x."Because my students beat it out of me.
The Manzella Matrix isn't even a Method, per se. It simply born itself out of the need to explain the Method I used to teach students without a Method.
Huh?
I have a "loosely defined" (at best), teaching method. By this, I mean a way to get a student, over what ever length of time I have, to do what I figure they need to be doing.
Golfers either swing too far to the right, or to the left. They either swing too up and down, or too much around. They have low point too far forward, or too far back. Their pivot either has a kinetic chain that snaps, or one that that goes poof. And, they either have a face that is pointing where they need it to or not. I have a "loosely defined" (at best), teaching method. By this, I mean a way to get a student, over what ever length of time I have, to do what I figure they need to be doing.
First, I watch their swing and notice their "D plane," which is the plane formed by the ball at address, the true face angle at impact (where a magnetic lie angle tool would point), and the true path of the club at impact. This is the plane the ball travels on until wind or gravity interrupt. And I observe closely the elements that are creating this D plane. I watch the look of their motions vs. the look of the ball flight, and how they use their pivots. Where is the ball position? Where are they aiming?
Of course Hank Haney would tell you he does the very same things.
But...
A method teacher like Haney or Ballard will then figure out what things the student is doing that are not part of their method. And then they start the process of "conforming" them to their ideal model.
So does Ben Doyle.
Now Ben taught me, and I love him very much, and he is a great teacher, and trust me, Haney and Ballard are in the top 1% of all instructors, but that just ain't me folks, and it never will be.
Why?
Because teaching any method will leave way too many golfers with a pattern that is just not best for them. In other words, I don't teach a method because, quite simply, my goal of being the best golf teacher who ever lived, has no chance with one or two patterns in my toolbox.
I will say that if you are going to be a method teacher, then you might want to choose a method that will make your talented students look like the golfers who are in the Hall-of-Fame.
Leadbetter's 80's and 90's method looked very unorthodox when done as written, and so does Ballard's and Hardy's. Haney's look the most orthodox of the "media darling" teachers, but Ben's would fit in any Hall.
Orthodox is orthodox because it worked the best over time. But it is hard to sell orthodox. I have no problem with unorthodox if it works. And I have wound up with some very unique solutions over the years because it doesn't scare me to try anything.
Being a non-method teacher is a lot harder on the teacher, though.
Why?
Because then, the teacher's teaching ability is exposed. A method teacher can always say, "Well, he just needs to be more like the model." Someone who is trying to sell "custom" better get results.
My number two pet peeve is teachers who teach some wacky pattern, and try to pass it off as orthodox. Look at Hardy's pictures in his book. The ones of him, posed or not, look as far from "Hall of Fame" as I've ever seen. If Ben Hogan's right arm is in the exact position pre-imapct as Hardy claims, then Anthony Ravelli is a hack.
But I have no problem with any pattern any teacher teaches if it works as explained. The problem with figuring that out is the "Teacher's Dichotomy."
There is what the teacher says to do, what the student thinks the teacher says to do, and what the student actually does. I guess you could fact check a method teacher with a really good 3D machine, but the "troubleshooters" aren't lining up for that anytime soon.
My number one pet peeve is poor students trying some wacky unorthodox stuff, like the very forward, very high hands, with the lawn mower back swing, and the 11° inside-out "straight ball." My comrade in arms Mike Jacobs and I really don't mind the business we get fixing this junk, but we feel really bad for the student's wasted time, effort and money.
I like to treat my lessons as a jazz musician would playing a piece. Never the same way twice, but good all the time. There are some things that my first lessons seem to have in common, though. First I look around, then I do some archeology to find out the origins of their maladies. Then I try to figure out the one move or shot that there should be no way they could do with their current pattern, and get them to do that.
But, there is one concept I really get the most use out of.
"The behavior that is rewarded is the behavior you will get."
I learned that from an old college professor of mine, who wrote a book on it called "The Greatest Management Principle in the World." Michael Leboeuf missed a couple early classes and told us we'd all get A's or B's, and wouldn't have to show up anymore, but he wanted to teach us this one concept from his new books he was going travel around promoting.
Boy was that golden.
My golf instruction version is simply this:
"If you want a element of a golf swing to change, take away the reward the golfer gets for doing it."
Works like a charm.
It is a large part of my teaching method, just like making them "look" more like a golfer, and making lessons fun.
But I am not a method teacher. I am a teacher.
