"You'll hit it worse for awhile"

[ggsjpc]

yea, I could have phrased that better.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by ggsjpc
I would never tell someone this statement because it is just bad teaching to say it.

I should have worded it like this," I would never tell someone You'll hit it worse for a while." After reading what I wrote again, I can see that it was confusing.

I agree when Kevin said, they should hit SOME better, but even this has an assumption of how better is defined.

If Bruce Lietzke came for a lesson how would you define better? Is better the ability to do something repeatably or is it something else? Who defines what better is? The student or the instructor?

Is there a piont when the swing is good enough and they can't hit it any better? In other words, is there a perfect swing?

At what point does the student's natural ability stifle their ability to perform the action?

My point isn't that I think you should tell people they get worse before they get better. My point is that is dangerous to make a blanket statement applicable to all students at all times that they will always hit it "better" after the lesson. Motor skill training doesn't work like that for everyone, at all times, no matter what.

I think it could be argued that a teacher unwilling to allow their student to learn something so different than what they are currently doing that it may make it difficult to be immediately, consistently better is afraid that their information won't improve the student in the long run. This fear may cause them too give some information to help them that day, but may not help them down the road.

 

[jaridyard]

I find it hard to believe that this many golf professionals would say they would expect to hit it better during the lesson each time they took a lesson. If they wouldn't why would they expect their students to. If that was the case, wouldn't you take a lesson much more often? Why wouldn't a person take a lesson every day, especially if most would be free (I offer a guarantee of ball flight improvement in a lesson, if I fail I don't charge.)

I understand that this is our goal, but it is not realistic. I would never tell someone this statement because it is just bad teaching to say it.

How do you structure your lessons? Do you...

Begin by identifying the pupils goals?

Letting them define what they'd like to improve?

How they would like their ballflight to be?

They set the task, then it is not my opinion of whether they improved or not.

I didn't say that they would hit the ball forever better after the lesson but would during, to suggest otherwise would be ridiculous. A motor skill doesn't become autonomous in an hour, the pupil will be left stuck in the cognitive phase I'm afraid but there's not much we can do about that except provide the method(s) for making changes autonomous.

So we now have a pupil defined definition for improvement and the challenge to have them exhibiting a physical understanding within the hour, if I can't do that I've done something wrong.

Feel free to take the gamble of coming back tomorrow, as once again you define the goal based upon todays ballflight, I get you there, you pay.

If that defines me as a bad teacher, so be it. I'm a bad teacher!

 

[ggsjpc]

How do you structure your lessons? Do you...

Begin by identifying the pupils goals?

Letting them define what they'd like to improve?

How they would like their ballflight to be?

They set the task, then it is not my opinion of whether they improved or not.

I didn't say that they would hit the ball forever better after the lesson but would during, to suggest otherwise would be ridiculous. A motor skill doesn't become autonomous in an hour, the pupil will be left stuck in the cognitive phase I'm afraid but there's not much we can do about that except provide the method(s) for making changes autonomous.

So we now have a pupil defined definition for improvement and the challenge to have them exhibiting a physical understanding within the hour, if I can't do that I've done something wrong.

Feel free to take the gamble of coming back tomorrow, as once again you define the goal based upon todays ballflight, I get you there, you pay.

If that defines me as a bad teacher, so be it. I'm a bad teacher!

check my last post. i cleared that statement part up...sorry for the confusion

 

[jaridyard]

Didn't see page 3, no worries.

 

[mjstrong]

If Bruce Lietzke came for a lesson how would you define better? Is better the ability to do something repeatably or is it something else? Who defines what better is? The student or the instructor?

It would depend on why he came to you. If he was looking to add a draw to his arsenal, for example, "better" could be defined as hitting a few draws in the way the two of you have decided to do it, or at least see some component of it.

I know what you mean, the better the player, the tougher it could be to define "better."

 

[shortgamer]

Yeah with a better player it might be to simply cut down on the misses.

 

[tilthatday]

Gonna Get Worse

If all your students improve with every lesson, you guys must have a lot of par shooters on your hands. How soon will one of them shoot 54?

Trees don't grow to the sky.

 

[Brian Manzella]

Nice first post.

If all your students improve with every lesson, you guys must have a lot of par shooters on your hands. How soon will one of them shoot 54?

Trees don't grow to the sky.

Just a little clarification:

Personally, when I give golf lessons, especially the first lesson with a student, I have them hitting better shots then they were when they arrived about 95% of the time.

Do they hit every shot better?

No.

Do I do it with "smoke and mirrors"?

Never.

Does anyone get worse?

I can remember a couple.

The good thing about them, is they make me research and dig to find solutions to why they didn't improve.

You see, I don't teach one pattern to everyone.

If I did, and I have, you would probably make more than half the people worse because you are introducing an array of new components into a motion that may not even ever accept them.

Do my students keep getting better?

Yup.

Of course, the Tournament Players have gotten to the point that some of the improvements are very small, and sometimes with that group, it is a lot of maintenance.

"You guys must have a lot of par shooters on your hands?"

I have a lot of them, but really, even the average golfer who is a 8 or 9 handicapper when they start with us, can improve a lot (say to a 4 or 5) and still not be a "par shooter."

Not to mention a high-handicapper who comes to us.

Another factor is that I travel around the country teaching, and I have very few "every week-type" students, in fact, just a couple.

So many of the folks i see, I see once a year.

They get better though.

I don't have anyone who will threaten 54 anytime soon, but 64 is another story.

I really feel sorry for you.

You must be a teacher, and you must have never seen anyone who does what I do they way I do it.

That one reason why golf instruction is where it is today.

 

[Richie3Jack]

Brian hit it on the head with the par shooters. A lot of the time it's just maintainance.

Like I've posted before, I used to work on my game with a teacher and after getting lessons from him, I noticed that 'it's going to get worse before it gets better' was really a bunch of bull.

I played to a +1.7 during college and I wasn't shooting course records after getting a lesson from him, but I would hit the ball better and start shooting some better scores, although a lot of that depended upon how my putting was.

But inevitably it became more of a maintainance thing. For as long as I had been playing golf, for as much as I practiced and for as much as I understood about the golf swing, I would easily fall into bad habits. Stance too narrow, clubface closed at address, clubface opened at address, too upright or too flat on the backswing, right hand grip getting too strong, etc, etc, etc. All little maintainance things I struggled with.

And it's why I think the game is so difficult and frustrating. It's incredibly easy to fall into a bad habit...often times without even knowing it...and it can really hurt your game.

I think anybody who uses the 'it's going to get worse before it gets better' is really selling themselves and the student short.




3JACK

 

[tilthatday]

Tiger Woods is a bum. I just realized that. Tiger had on off year (by Tiger standards) when he made swing changes. Despite getting that "lesson a day" he got worse before he got better.
Hope nobody tells the poor soul.

 

[wdking]

Not a teacher but...

Over the years, I have taken many lessons and have become friendly with a great deal of instructors, including Brian and Mike Jacobs. I have the utmost respect for each and every one, but it seems that some are not following a structure, like Brian's matrix. The last time someone told me I was going to 'get worse before getting better' was the last time I worked with him.

I went to see Mike Jacobs in the fall of 2007, and I hit it better immediately, with more of a NHA pattern. When I saw Brian at golf school in May 2008 I hit it real good again...but more importantly I finally understood why I was hitting it good and why it went bad. To me, that's what a good instructor does. They teach you to understand your own swing and now I do.

One more thing, for all you students, buy your own video camera w/tripod. If you have any baseline video from your instructor, you can compare it as you practice. It's also a way to keep your instructor interested in the person who is paying the bills-YOU.

 

[Brian Manzella]

100 to nothin'

Tiger Woods is a bum. I just realized that. Tiger had on off year (by Tiger standards) when he made swing changes. Despite getting that "lesson a day" he got worse before he got better.
Hope nobody tells the poor soul.

Did Tiger get worse when he started working with Butch?

Yes.

Did he eventually get better?

Yes.

Did he get worse when he started working with Hank?

Yes.

Did he eventually get better?

Yes, although some would say his "best" was 2000 when he was still with Butch.

Doesn't this make your point?

No.

It makes mine.

I'll explain.

Butch Harmon had A method when he started working with Tiger. Just look at the pre-Butch and post-Butch Greg Norman sequences.

He started with that method on Tiger, but quickly changed gears when it was tanking early. He developed his current "one pattern" method to be what Tiger was trying to do in 2000.

Tiger left Butch because, basically, Tiger is a down-shifter-to-the-elbow-plane golfer, and Butch has no idea about downswing plane theory.

Tiger was hitting that right-to-right shot because he would subconsciously try to get back on the elbow plane late, and couldn't square it up from there.

Butch kept telling him that he was getting stuck when he was downshifting and told Tiger to get more out in front of himself.

Tiger down-shifted even later and the ball went further right.

Hank got hired.

Hank allows Tiger to get on the elbow plane, but all of that congruent angle stuff is so counter intuitive, it took Tiger a while to process it.

This is the point:

Both Butch and Hank were trying what ALL METHOD TEACHERS DO WHEN THEY TEACH GOOD PLAYERS, they try to justify their existence on planet Earth by finding a talented student and getting that student to succeed with the teacher's METHOD/PATTERN.

In plain english, they weren't trying to do what I would would do with any student.

Which is:

Find the root cause of their problem, and fix it and develop a new custom pattern from there.

I have seen Butch and Hank teach live, and well, they don't do ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

So, thanks for helping me make my point.

 

[tilthatday]

My pleasure. And thank you for helping me make mine.

 

[vjsinger]

Tiger Woods is a bum.


Wish I was a Bum then.

 

[vjsinger]

My pleasure. And thank you for helping me make mine.

Why are you trying to start something?? You're gonna lose. I don't even see your point.

 

[Brian Manzella]

My pleasure. And thank you for helping me make mine.

I did nothing of the kind.

METHOD TEACHERS WILL ALMOST ALWAYS MAKE TOUR CALIBER PLAYER WORSE FIRST!!!!!!!

I know this because, well, I once was a "one pattern" method teacher.

You remind me of the guy who worked for Leadbetter that sat next to us at a Benihanna. He told me I "would have no chance" in a debate or teach off against his boy.

He had never laid eyes on my teaching.

You haven't either.

Don't bet too high.

 

[ggsjpc]

Great Discussion

Brian,

I thought your last couple posts were excellent. Working within the framework of the player's current swing is absolutely the signature of someone that can teach. The "this way or the highway" method is not designed to help current golfer's but only create swing clones, ala woods and scott.

Right on with the keep doing it until someone talented comes along.

Anyone with a true desire to help all golfers has dabbled with a method, myself included, and found that it doesn't work. It can't work unless maybe you are only working with brand new golfers and you get to design your method on them from beginning. The ability to take a good golfer and make them great. Now that is real talent.

I've got a former student that works with a teacher in Lousiana now that she moved to Baton Rouge. I try to come and see her when I can. I would love to get together with you, watch and talk golf.

Very impressive site and level of educated members. Don't forget if I ever get into an argument, it's because of my signature.

John

 

[tilthatday]

B. you seem determined to have the last word, so be my guest.
But to dismiss Butch Harmon and Hank Haney as mere "method teachers" and to assert that they "always" make tour caliber players worse before they make them better is silly and undermines whatever credibility you're trying to establish. Those two guys can teach anyone at any level. And if their students get worse before they get better, well that proves my point, doesn't it?
Thanks and I'm done.

 

[Jim Kobylinski]

B. you seem determined to have the last word, so be my guest.
But to dismiss Butch Harmon and Hank Haney as mere "method teachers" and to assert that they "always" make tour caliber players worse before they make them better is silly and undermines whatever credibility you're trying to establish. Those two guys can teach anyone at any level. And if their students get worse before they get better, well that proves my point, doesn't it?
Thanks and I'm done.

While i agree that Brian is a spirited debater; nothing is proving your point. What you are missing that i will try and expand on is that you can eventually teach even DECENT players (touring pros are irrelevant) to do whatever you (the teacher) wants but does that mean it's optimal? Maybe they will end up hitting it better, eventually, but is that the best route? Take someone and "mold" them into what "you" want just because it's "your way" rather than doing whats best for them from the beginning?

 

[Richie3Jack]

Those two guys can teach anyone at any level.

That's not true.

I've seen cases where that's not even close to being true.




3JACK