Written Debate between Brian Manzella & Birly-Shirly

[Brian Manzella]

I had posted a thread about an experience I had last month in Las Vegas.

I gave a lesson to a student who had taken a lesson previously with a teacher who is well thought of throughout the web.

The student was a slicer with a good grip. When I asked about his lesson with the teacher he said the teacher did not address anything about his current swing, but had begun to teach that student his method of choice. The student did not hit it better, and did not go for another lesson.

I fixed him in 14 balls, documented with TrackMan numbers in the thread.

A relatively new forum member, "Birly-Shirly" disagreed with me on several points on my thread starter, my competitive business practices, my distain for inferior teaching, among other things.

No matter how I put my argument, he disagreed with most of it.

So after much contentious non-discussion, I offered "Birly" the chance to debate me, question me, or interview me live on UStream. My feeling was that the internet s full of trolls, and after my experience with "CarrollGalleyZ" & her alter ego "Playa_Brian," and the real person who also was posting on threads, I feel that live discussion would prevent a similar instance of out-and-out fraud.

"Birly" declined.

I love debate, and so I took "Birly" up on his offer of a written one.


Here is the format I put forth:


Each person submits 1 question from "discussions" on the original thread, and 1 other on golf instruction each.

Each person has to answer ALL FOUR of the questions.

150 word limit to answers.

At the end, each person gets a 150 word follow up.


Here are my questions:

1. (from the thread) Do you think golf instruction as a whole as it stands right now in the golf world, is adequate or not?

2. (from golf instruction in general) What is the worse element you can have in any golf swing?

 

[birly-shirly]

"Do you think golf instruction as a whole as it stands right now in the golf world, is adequate or not?"

The mainstream "glossy" media? Shallow, gimmicky and poor. Choose well and I think 1 book would give you more solid information than a year's subscription.

That would be "not adequate"

Books? Mine are mostly good - if you like, I'll follow up with a list. Nothing is perfect and I think it's a must to read around and learn to sift what might be good for you. I would never recommend one single book in isolation. The biggest problem is the medium - and lots of people will have difficulty in applying the lessons from the printed page. But I don't think that means that the underlying information is necessarily flawed.

"Adequate."

Hands-on teaching? How can I possibly know? But I'll take it on faith that in a market economy a business that survives or thrives on repeat business is offering something that people value. On the volumes you quoted, I'm guessing that casual trade is much less of a factor than repeat custom.

If the big schools are doing well financially, I think that is more significant than anecdotes from disgruntled students. We're supposed to be science-based here, remember? Evidence trumps anecdote or emotion, even strongly expressed emotions. Who loves Microsoft? But is it a good company making good money from offering solid products? I think so.

I know this might appear to contradict somwhat my assesment of the glossy media. So 2 caveats. Buying a magazine is a casual purchase for lots of people, just because it's about their hobby and it's cheap. If the instruction section stinks, that might not hit sales all that hard. I also think teaching revenues might be more secure than media revenues, although the media could probably evolve faster if it feels it needs to.

Big schools aside - I agreed when you said

Surely there are MANY TEACHERS out there that could have fixed that golfer.

I think there are plenty teachers out there who can teach. It pays to do your research. But I'm sure they're out there. Bottom line, I managed. So, I'm sure, did your students.

That would be "adequate" - from the point of view of "Can I find a decent lesson?"

From the point of view of "Is a teacher, chosen from the phonebook at random, going to give me a good lesson?" - I'd have to say "Don't know". I wouldn't spend my money that way. On both counts, that's probably a "Not adequate."


"What is the worst element you can have in any golf swing?"

I have no idea why I'm answering this, other than to humour you. I've never pretended to teach or analyse the swing. But rather than duck my first question on this thread - here goes.

Worst is whatever troubles the student the most. If they're whiffing or drop kicking the ball - I don't think they care that they're whiffing with an open clubface. If you can help them make solid contact with the ball, they'll be happy - for a while. But I think crappy contact is the worst, most frustrating, fault that any golfer experiences.

If they've got a consistent slice or hook - then your trackman would tell you an awful lot. If not, then I think it's easiest to think in terms of a clubface misaligned to path - and basic John Jacobs style fault analysis and fix would be the way to go (bearing in mind a proper D-plane based diagnosis of initial ballflight). If you overcook it, then I'm sure that an inveterate slicer's first duck hook will seem a thing of beauty. So give them that.

If their left wrist is breaking down through the ball - then you maybe won't see a consistent slice or hook. I'd guess you'd have to fix the flip and then see what consistent ball-flight pattern shows up once they're more consistent through the ball. Could you have a flip AND a slice or hook pattern? I'm sure you could. But I'm sure you'd do well to deal with the ballflight pattern, then the flip, and maybe ballflight again.

On the basis that the left wrist break down is the "deepest lying" fault and could easily skew your diagnosis of any other ballflight or contact fault, and probably takes the most work to fix - you could say it's the "worst" fault.

But I still think that for most students, the worst fault that they'll care about is the one that's stopping them from hitting better shots in the damn near immediate future.

 

[Brian Manzella]

My 150 Word Answers....

For the record, your answers were 397 words, and 302 words.

Here are my 150 word answers:

"Do you think golf instruction as a whole as it stands right now in the golf world, is adequate or not?"

No.

Starting from the top, the teachers are poorly trained from organizations that are too stubborn to do valid research on the science of the swing and what is working in the field, and pass it on.

The teachers in the field—in an attempt to have something to teach—use video and line drawing with little thought to its proper utilization, embrace methods before any scientific or even eye-ball-test scrutiny has validated the theories, and have a tough time repairing the easy to change before applying a entirely new pattern.

The golf media contributes to this dilemma by over promoting the same few instructors for the last 20 years, and under searching for new talent. Their top teacher lists confuse golfers who seek out the supposed best in the field and leave disappointed in the results.

Golf is losing players who could become reasonably proficient with easy upgrades.


"What is the worst element you can have in any golf swing?"

The overly open clubface by a landslide.

Whether it occurs in the grip, on the backswing, on the downswing, or in any combination of the three, it causes the slice, contributes to poor contact, tempts a shank, influences the pivot toward an un-athletic lurch, makes the equipment companies grossly over-compensate, is the father of the chicken-wing, and sometimes even rewards the flip.

It has frustrated golfers since hickory was played and not displayed, and caused teachers and inventors to treat the over-the-top effect, and ignore the twist-toward cause.

It will not respond to good posture, on-plane motion, clubhead lag, impact hands, ball-divot contact, or a balanced finish.

It sucks the life out of the owner of the malady, turns mid-irons into short ones, and creates disproportionate property values on either side of home-lined fairways.

It, and its offspring, are undoubtedly the #1 reasons golfers quit the game, and teachers quit the profession.

 

[birly-shirly]

OK - my swing question is this.

I got NHA 2.0 when I had been hitting a consistent push-draw. I liked the video. When I went to the range the first time, I didn't change my grip, I didn't work on clubface control (angled hinging/gather up the marbles) and I didn't work on the backswing rotation of the left arm flying wedge. I did work on a little lateral bs shift, less of a conscious turn, and an "up the wall, down the wall" swing. I don't think I even worked consciously on the carry at first. I immediately got a high left to right ball flight, which I hadn't seen since I can't remember when. Bad shots were push-fades, some quite far right. Very few, if any, balls starting left. All without consciously working on clubface alignment.

Do you know why?

 

[Brian Manzella]

OK - my swing question is this.

I got NHA 2.0 when I had been hitting a consistent push-draw. I liked the video. When I went to the range the first time, I didn't change my grip, I didn't work on clubface control (angled hinging/gather up the marbles) and I didn't work on the backswing rotation of the left arm flying wedge. I did work on a little lateral bs shift, less of a conscious turn, and an "up the wall, down the wall" swing. I don't think I even worked consciously on the carry at first. I immediately got a high left to right ball flight, which I hadn't seen since I can't remember when. Bad shots were push-fades, some quite far right. Very few, if any, balls starting left. All without consciously working on clubface alignment.

Do you know why?

Let's assume you had a more or less conventional pattern before putting in a backswing lateral bump, a less on-purpose turn, and the "up-the-wall/down-the-wall hand and club path."

Those movements probably moved your path slightly more leftward, and someone adding more lift and more out on the backswing, will either pull it way left at first, or try to get back under the left arm flying wedge because it FEELS like you are going to smother-pull it. That is why the clubface opened. The extra height came from the "under" effecting the impact forward lean of the shaft, along with probably more load then unload of both the shaft and your right wrist bend from having more to pull on at the top.

So let's say your prior stock 6-iron had a path of 4° inside-out, with a 3° open face, and a dynamic loft of 25°. A medium height push-draw.

The alterations gave you a path of 1° inside-out, with a 4° open face, and a dynamic loft of 28°. A quite high right-to-right shot.

 

[Brian Manzella]

By reference to what just happened herewith the No Contest thread and this debate, what makes this in your opinion "the best place in the world to discuss golf" and what makes you such a great debater?

Answer to come.

 

[Brian Manzella]

And BTW,

You are supposed to answer your questions in 150 words.

You didn't.

And, you are supposed to answer the last TWO questions in 150, you haven't.

 

[Brian Manzella]

Two for the price of one!

By reference to what just happened herewith the No Contest thread and this debate, what makes this in your opinion "the best place in the world to discuss golf"?

My 150 word answer to THIS question...

As the curator of the #1 site + forum run by a single instructor (Alexa.com Traffic Rank: 777,802), I strive to strike a balance between content and entertainment. My writing and debates skills are an asset, but too much debate and frivolity takes away from the peerless instructional information.

This requires sometimes locking threads, sometimes banning disruptives, and sometimes editing for readability.

All that being said, BrianManzella.com is the only place on the Internet that will discuss other methods, and possibly change our stance on ideals as we learn.

Mandrin’s science is a perfect example.

Name for me ANY other site or teacher that changes their stance as new information becomes available.

This does not mean we won’t also give our opinion on things we disagree with, no matter how unpopular.

Our open-minded attitude that science is king, and real world results are queen, makes it THE place to learn and discuss golfing.


and this one...



For those who might not know, from Wikipedia:

Debate or debating is a formal method of interactive and representational argument. Debate is a broader form of argument than logical argument, which only examines consistency from axiom, and factual argument, which only examines what is or isn't the case or rhetoric which is a technique of persuasion. Though logical consistency, factual accuracy and some degree of emotional appeal to the audience are important elements of the art of persuasion, in debating, one side often prevails over the other side by presenting a superior "context" and/or framework of the issue, which is far more subtle and strategic.

What makes you such a great debater?

I am a naturally curious person, and I have never accepted status quo on face value. I have a really good memory, and seem to remember contradictions that others make very well. My friends at the Manzella Academy share these traits, so we really look to blow up what we are currently doing everyday. We have a distain for paper-champions, and media creations. We sell results and sound science-based information. Most other groups and individuals sell methods.

All of that is a recipe for discovering things that aren’t as they should be. We do it all the time—to ourselves as well.

90% of the time I am even in a debate, I knew the answer before, and only debated because the other person didn’t. So I start most debates 1 up.

But, I am good talker, and a good writer, and mostly I love to debate for fun.


We await you 150 word answers to those three questions with NO OTHER COMMENT which will be deleted.

Rules are rules, and you wanted a written debate.