Mike Malaska or George Gankas

[dlygrisse]

If you really want to improve, then find someone close to where you live, that you trust and that you can build a relationship with. If you just want the latest "swing du jour" or what's trendy on Instagram then you decide. But from what I have seen GG is more of a young man's swing, while MM is someone who went down the "body swing" route as young man and in his 60's has evolved back to more of a arm swinger, while letting the body react. GG is making the body drive the club. (for those saying MM teaches using the hands, they don't fully grasp what he is saying)

 

Pluses and minuses to both, but I'll tell ya from experience that when you start approaching 50 years old MM style of swing is going to seem the way to go. While I'm not into swing methods much any longer, I will also say I really like what Monte teaches from what I have seen , but I really gravitated to the MDLT type of action which closely resembles what MM teaches.

 

 

[mantan]

I'm foolishly intrigued by Malaska. I'm a body rotation swinger. I got my handicap down to an all time low this year, but still struggle with coming too far from inside and being under plane. I've never been a great golfer (12.2 handicap), but the one golf gift I've had is naturally shallowing the club. I feel like Malaska's method may help fix it. But being hands driver is the TOTAL opposite of my current swing where I feel like my hands are just 'along for the ride.'

 

 

[tacklingdummy]

Both have very interesting takes on the golf swing to say the least. However, I like more of Malaska's take on the swing and not really fond of GG. There other instructors I like much better though. However, as with any instruction or instructor, if it helps you then they are good.

[BB28403]

Neither.

Andrew Rice x1000

[MillerLowLife]

Personally, I felt like GG's content really made sense and seemed like he was always focused on how to feel a movement/change vs real. For me, I need to FEEL the change and movement if I expect to be able to work on it in the future without an instructor. Problem being is that it takes real talent to identify issues in a swing, what to change, and how to transfer that knowledge so the student feels and understands what their body is doing. GG has a lot of knowledge and understands match ups. I think you see it with his lessons/students and numbers they put up.

I do however, think it's really hard to pick out information from GG's videos and then apply it to yourself. I think it's doable if you have extensive knowledge of the golf swing already but still hard to do.

I recently got a 2 hr lesson from Jake Gilmer in Las Vegas, NV last week who is associated with GG. Gotta say, it was the best money I've spent on golf in some time. He definitely has the same approach to the golf swing and making changes that will last. I've pretty much consumed all of GG's content over the last several years and have heard all the various concepts but could never successfully apply it to myself, even with a solid understanding of golf swing. I literally spent 2 hrs with Jake never took a full swing after the first initial 5 balls I hit to demonstrate my current problems. The rest of the time was understanding my faults and why that was causing the shots I was seeing and then just rep after rep of the feel at slow pace so that I could actually feel/apply the change. It's impossible to make these changes at full speed.

So I'm all for swing coaches that will really make an impact on making changes and how to transfer that knowledge to the student. Basically all you're ever seeing in his videos.

[Zitlow]

When people put money into something they become emotionally invested so it might be hard for them to express their dissatisfaction. What percentage of people who took lessons from GG or joined his site became disillusioned with his teaching?

[RichieHunt]

I’ve had quite a few friends that have taken lessons from GG. Like with any instructor, there are those that didn’t hate the experience, but I think they believed they would catch on right away and didn’t have the patience or willingness to try something different if they didn’t catch on quickly and gave up on it. But again, their reviews of working with him have been positive.

 

Most of those that started following his stuff did so on Instagram and YouTube and there’s a time and place for that, but you’re not really learning. Although one friend of mine who is a member at my club watches old YouTube and Instagram videos and swears by them. Another friend of mine tried doing the same thing, but he’s a higher handicap and I don’t think he ever grasped it to begin with.

 

Then there are the other friends I know who signed up for his old Web site and how that all went down left a bad impression, particularly with the new Web site charging significantly more.

 

My experience with GG (I’ve already booked another lesson with him next May) is that it made me re-think instruction as a whole. I used to think it was all about customization and staying completely away from a method and having some sort of system. Instead, I think that is fool’s gold and the best instructors are the ones that really know what they teach and know how to teach it. If you try to customize swings for everybody, you’re not going to know every possible swing technique as well as you could. Sorta like a jack of all trades…master of none, type of deal.

 

So no, GG’s swing isn’t for everybody. But he knows what he teaches and how to teach as well as anybody out there and I think a higher percentage of golfers can come to a closer proximity of what he teaches and hit the ball better than most people think. 

 

 

 

 

RH

[mantan]

That's the absolute risk of trying to pick up anything online. Over year we've seen people chase TGM, Ballard, Stack and tilt and several others. And often that was the pattern. People go 'all-in' and quietly become disillusioned when it doesn't work out for them. Probably the longest running thread on this subforum was the 'Slicefixer' thread. A ton of guys tried to learn a swing that was based on edited posts from SF. He pretty much left the board and people still were trying, arguing, debating the tenants. When I saw him he was 90% of the students who did the core 9-3 drill did it wrong.

While technically sound, most became disillusioned and moved on, including many that traveled to him. Not a knock on the knowledge, but it's just really hard to make major changes from a word or someone you see occasionally.

[i*windows]

Well I'm the same as you, handicap roughly the same, never struggled to shallow the club and come under the plane and my hands have never done anything in the swing. For most of this year I've experimented on a mixture of MM moves with a squat and I seem to be doing ok.

Two things that have helped me massively are his takeaway move, basically hinge up then turn and secondly is the way to start the downswing with his 'move' which massively helps from getting the club coming from under the plane with a bit of steepness.

If you are going to look into his stuff then you need to understand that his 'move' is not as simple as it looks and you need to do it correctly otherwise it will make an aweful mess and you will be pull hooking forever.

A lot of what he teaches is very similar to other coaches, but with a different spin on it. His pay site has thousands of videos on it, with some really interesting stuff. I would recommend subscribing for a month or so!

 

 

 

[Zitlow]

The squat happens as a byproduct of a proper transition. This is a gif file that isn't working, it shows a squat but it wasn't something he taught.

 

[aggiegolfer21]

In my opinion Malaska is far better. It is much easier to square the club with his method as it gets you working the club back out in front of you. I also don't think if done properly his swing philosophy gets you too steep into the ball. Its when you start overdoing his feels that you get too steep into the ball. With his method, the club works from parallel to the spine towards perpendicular to the spine in the back swing, then from perpendicular to the spine to parallel to the spine in the downswing. As long as the club gets back to parallel to the spine after impact, his method works, so if you're having trouble with his method, I would just make sure that you aren't fully releasing the club too early.

[dap]

I like Malaska's tipping the shaft move. I just don't like it how he says the club has a natural tendency to shallow out due to the weight of the club to validate his move. The tipping/steepening of the club doesn't happen in transition. It should happen late in the downswing from around P6. The hands move close to the body and the clubhead kicks out to the ball. In other words you should never feel the hands move out towards the ball when you release the club.

This is probably my favorite Malaska video.http://youtu.be/k8ACufeOZTk

[mantan]

 

 

The main thing I really took away was the video with Joe Nichols talking about the 4 corners. For me it's names the first corner. The only tweak I made was moving my hands to the 'first corner', from there I did everything else the same. I've always had a tendency to lift out over plane on the backswing, then drop in back down. The result was I felt I got into a good backswing position really easy. I've had 2 great practice sessions and it held up well through 18 holes yesterday.

I don't actively feel like I do anything with my hands on the downswing, but need to be hands driven to get to a good position in the backswing.

[TexasTurf]

They both have the upper body and lower body moving in different directions. No bueno.

[COACH9]

Been trying Gankas for about the last year. Like his knowledge of setup and balance and problems cause by faults with them. I have good rotational speed even in my upper 50's and have more of a young guy's swing with 120 clubhead speed. The things I've struggled with his stuff have been my direction and consistent bottom to my arc. Fat too many shots. But really love how I was hitting my Driver. Get an audience sometimes. lol

Just started doing Malaska's stuff. My direction and bottom of arc were much improved. Haven't worked through my whole bag yet so jury is still out. But early returns are favorable.

[Red4282]

Gankas by a mile. He sure was hard to get used to at first, unique way of teaching..and communicating. malaskas screwed me up pretty bad. Also love andrew rice as well

[bogeypro]

Unless someone has worked with both, they're simply making uneducated guesses at what each one teaches. Based on stats, majority of fold can't break 90 yet we're asking these folks to pic an instructor based on internet videos?!

[gripandrip]

I'm kind of a Malaska guy, but probably due to my my engineering/theoretical background. I like the methodology of his teaching, and his simple explanations of what your trying to accomplish. I'm not too familiar with GG.

However, I'd be lying if I didn't say that I like other video explanations as well from other coaches. You don't have to be one coach or another if you are looking for the basic fundamentals of physics and motion. I'm also a big fan of some of Monte's videos. I wouldn't say I have a Malaska swing. I have my swing, educated from various different sources. I also have a local coach I work with, and find very little conflict on basic fundamentals of what you are trying to accomplish with a golf swing.

[Man_O_War]

for beginners and learning the range of the game, please look to Malaska. He's from the Toski, Flick, Nicklaus school of golf swinging. for me this is best

for experienced players..probably GG.

[TIM929]

Gankas for me.

 

Not easy to learn, but easy to repeat.

[DShepley]

I find Malaska's method very similar to what Jim Hardy describes as an RIT release, (think Kuchar, Sergio, Rory). I'm in no way saying that Malaska copied Hardy, or Hardy copied Malaska but rather that they both have identified a release pattern that limits the need to stand the club up late and roll the shaft to square the face. In this type of release the club is squared to the path much earlier than in a rolling release and the right wrist moves from extension to flexion to move the club through impact. This requires that your hands return at impact very close to the space they held at address which requires a whole lot of correct body movement to create the space. I follow a lot of Hardy's teachings and what I can say, is that if you don't already have swing patterns that are close to this style, it seems very hard to learn, (this has been my experience as well as the experience of a host of other people on Hardy's Plane Truth forum). It's best to find a teacher who works with what you have to make everything better rather than trying to adopt an entirely new pattern in my opinion. For some Malaska will be great, for others Gankas will be great. This question may as well be, "How long is a piece of string?", the answer being, "as long as it needs to be". Pick an instructor who communicates well and resonates with you, (you need to easily understand what they are saying), and....if you don't see some early encouraging improvement then move on!

[indianagolf2]

GG wants a 12 month committment to his 45 per month subscription, thatsc500.00

[indianagolf2]

[GolfGrouch]

I believe that this video best explains a possible flaw in Gankas's core principle about shallowing the shaft:

Any thoughts?

[Red4282]

Not really, a lot of these guys teach the same thing just different semantics and how they convey the message.

[oikos1]

Lol. They used Matthew Wolff, one of Gankas's students, to support what they were discussing. Perhaps you didn't watch the full video

[Miggaletoe]

They are showing he doesn't do what GG advocates for though...

[GolfGrouch]

Exactly! Thanks for taking the time to understand. Gankas teaches keeping the hands high at the start of the downswing to shallow the shaft. However, this is not reflected in the Gears 3D motion capture models nor Gankas student Matthew Wolff.

[stingerfade]

It’s a feel. Feel not real. It works

[Red4282]

Yep exactly. Just watch gankas swing in slo mo, he doesnt even do what he is saying, well maybe on a very small scale, but he demonstrates it exaggerated for feel and teaching purposes.