Flashy vs more anonymous instructors

[bluedot]

48 minutes ago, MK7Golf21 said:

The purpose of a golf lesson is to improve at golf. We are saying you don’t need to spend 6 grand to improve when the other guy only charges 1 grand and can get you the same improvement.
 

From my experience the cost doesn’t equal the value most of the time. it’s based in YouTube/media popularity or golf digest political popularity lists. If someone is taking golf lessons other than to improve, then something is off with them. 

 

You are completely entitled to feel this way.  But everything in between your first and last sentences above is your subjective opinion, with zero data to back it up, and you continue to want to determine value on behalf of others.
 

As to the last sentence, and putting aside the extraneous question of resale, if the purpose of a watch is to tell time, does the purchase of a Rolex mean “something is off” with purchaser?  If the purpose of a car is to get from point A to point B, does the purchase of a six figure car indicate that “something is off” with the purchaser?

[GoGoErky]

4 minutes ago, MPStrat said:

@bluedot @johnrobison
 

Golfer A takes a lesson from Hank Haney at $650/hr

 

Golfer B takes a lesson from Dan Carraher at $200/hr

 

For the sake of discussion let’s say all other things are equal. We are just talking about the golf lesson itself.
 

If both golfers sole purpose in taking the lesson is to improve their golf game, the correct answer is golfer B  got a better value for their money. Golfer A might be living under a rock and not know this when they make their value determination, but that doesn’t mean they got the best value for their money. 
 

I feel like this is fairly common sense stuff. 
 

Golfer A feels the teaching style, communication or whatever is more to his liking/preference then he would have wasted money going to another instructor who wouldn’t have helped him improve and would have as to spent more money to improve.

 

 

[bluedot]

1 minute ago, MPStrat said:

Consumer A pays $35,000 for a new Toyota Camry

 

Consumer B pays $36,000 for a 2012 Toyota Camry with 120,000 miles 

 

Which consumer got the better value? 

 

You are asking for MY opinion.  And my opinion of the value someone else places on a purchase or possession is completely irrelevant.

 

Btw, if you know of someone willing to pay $35,000 for a 2012 Camry, PLEASE send them my way!  I think we could make a deal.  (And mine is a hybrid with a new hybrid battery and only 103,000 miles!  It’s a steal!)

[MK7Golf21]

58 minutes ago, johnrobison said:

I had a choice between a few universities, all of which look equally good on a resume. My purpose in going to any of them was to get an education. If I chose the more expensive option, did I overpay?

too many factors go into a university choice than a golf lesson, it’s un comparable. However, out of entertainment I will say if both look equal on the resume for your degree and 1 is costing the individual 10 grand a semester but the other is 60 grand a semester then you are a fool to choose the 60 grand one if you are paying your own tuition without a rich mommy and daddy taking care of the debt. It’s a major problem in the US right now matter of fact and a deep subject.

[johnrobison]

1 minute ago, MK7Golf21 said:

too many factors go into a university choice than a golf lesson, it’s un comparable. However, out of entertainment I will say if both look equal on the resume for your degree and 1 is costing the individual 10 grand a semester but the other is 60 grand a semester then you are a fool to choose the 60 grand one if you are paying your own tuition without a rich mommy and daddy taking care of the debt. It’s a major problem in the US right now matter of fact and a deep subject.

For 60 grand I get a better education from more experienced professors with a depth of research and publishing, and the campus, facilities, and school resources are better. If I can afford that, how am I a fool?

[johnrobison]

26 minutes ago, MPStrat said:

Consumer A pays $35,000 for a new Toyota Camry

 

Consumer B pays $36,000 for a 2012 Toyota Camry with 120,000 miles 

 

Which consumer got the better value? 

 

Again, golf instruction is not a commodity market.

[MK7Golf21]

23 minutes ago, bluedot said:

You are completely entitled to feel this way.  But everything in between your first and last sentences above is your subjective opinion, with zero data to back it up, and you continue to want to determine value on behalf of others.
 

As to the last sentence, and putting aside the extraneous question of resale, if the purpose of a watch is to tell time, does the purchase of a Rolex mean “something is off” with purchaser?  If the purpose of a car is to get from point A to point B, does the purchase of a six figure car indicate that “something is off” with the purchaser?

a Rolex and 6 figure car are un comparable to a golf lesson. Rolex actually increase in value and last forever vs a 10 dollar target watch. 6 figure car will have all sorts of performance benefits vs a Camry. 
 

missing the point. If your 6 grand lesson is going to make you improve on a scale of a Lamborghini vs a camry then yeah go for it. We are saying that isn’t the case from our experience and have explained why. We are trying to help. 

[johnrobison]

32 minutes ago, MPStrat said:

@bluedot @johnrobison
 

Golfer A takes a lesson from Hank Haney at $650/hr

 

Golfer B takes a lesson from Dan Carraher at $200/hr

 

For the sake of discussion let’s say all other things are equal. We are just talking about the golf lesson itself.
 

If both golfers sole purpose in taking the lesson is to improve their golf game, the correct answer is golfer B  got a better value for their money. Golfer A might be living under a rock and not know this when they make their value determination, but that doesn’t mean they got the best value for their money. 
 

I feel like this is fairly common sense stuff. 
 

Is it? That was common sense?? Somehow you have the knowledge to be certain that their golf game isn’t improved even more if they go to Hank Haney???

 

Also…no…You cannot “for the sake of discussion” make all other things equal. Everything about it has to be considered. All variables. The golfer’s total experience has to be considered and not simply disregarded as though the only thing they’re paying for is words coming out of someone’s mouth.

[MK7Golf21]

6 minutes ago, johnrobison said:

For 60 grand I get a better education from more experienced professors with a depth of research and publishing, and the campus, facilities, and school resources are better. If I can afford that, how am I a fool?

that’s not what you said, You said they look equal on the resume. If this was the case they wouldn’t be equal on the resume. 
 

missing the point. If your 6 grand lesson is going to make you improve on a scale of a 60 grand per sem. Vs 10 grand semester then go for it We are saying that isn’t the case from our experience and have explained why. We are trying to help. 

 

[johnrobison]

5 minutes ago, MK7Golf21 said:

that’s not what you said, You said they look equal on the resume. If this was the case they wouldn’t be equal on the resume. 
 

missing the point. If your 6 grand lesson is going to make you improve on a scale of a 60 grand per sem. Vs 10 grand semester then go for it We are saying that isn’t the case from our experience and have explained why. We are trying to help. 

 

 

Not true. Plenty of universities look equally good on a resume but have different faculty and facilities. Sorry but you’re mistaken about that point.

 

You saying that someone won’t improve more from one teacher or the other doesn’t make it so. I have plenty of experience with plenty of instructors at all ends of the price spectrum and you trying to help me based on your experience doesn’t automatically supercede that. Sorry but just because you say they won’t improve as much or more doesn’t make it a fact and the determinant of value.

Edited September 17, 2023 by johnrobison

[MK7Golf21]

4 minutes ago, johnrobison said:

Not true. Plenty of universities look equally good on a resume but have different faculty and facilities. Sorry but you’re mistaken about that point.

 

You saying that someone won’t improve more from one teacher or the other doesn’t make it so. I have plenty of experience with plenty of instructors at all ends of the price spectrum and you trying to help me based on your experience doesn’t automatically supercede that. Sorry but just because you say they won’t improve as much or more doesn’t make it a fact and the determinant of value.

Of course they have different faculty and facilities. How could they be the same? Again, if they are equal on the resume then it’s close enough in terms of education and experience. If it wasn’t, they would not be equal on the resume. You are mistaken if you think otherwise. 

[johnrobison]

2 minutes ago, MK7Golf21 said:

Of course they have different faculty and facilities. How could they be the same? Again, if they are equal on the resume then it’s close enough in terms of education and experience. If it wasn’t, they would not be equal on the resume. You are mistaken if you think otherwise. 

That’s simply not true. I have quite a bit of personal experience on both the education side and the hiring/employment side. But this is a digression from the point of this discussion - I was simply trying to remove “prestige” as a variable - so let’s not get mired in the nuances of analogies. These things tend to take the original discussion WAY off course.

[MPStrat]

 

5 minutes ago, johnrobison said:

Is it? That was common sense?? Somehow you have the knowledge to be certain that their golf game isn’t improved even more if they go to Hank Haney???

 

Let’s rewind a bit and bring this back down to earth. I never said anyone’s game isn’t going to be improved. 

If a person has a Hank Haney poster on their wall and wants to take a lesson from him to knock it off their bucket list, more power to them.

 

But if a guy on a budget is trying to decide if he needs to see a big name, flashy,  high priced instructor (Hank Haney among others) or one who is at least as knowledgeable as Hank and significantly less money (Dan), he might choose the guy who is less money. 

 

The point of this thread is that you don’t need to see a flashy instructor to improve at golf. Some are just big names and don’t have any more to offer than some guys who charge 1/10th of their rate.
 

Being able to charge more for golf lessons isn’t an indication that they’re a better teacher or that they know more than teachers who charge less. Golfers are free to choose, but they should choose knowing this fact. 

[bluedot]

27 minutes ago, MK7Golf21 said:

a Rolex and 6 figure car are un comparable to a golf lesson. Rolex actually increase in value and last forever vs a 10 dollar target watch. 6 figure car will have all sorts of performance benefits vs a Camry. 
 

missing the point. If your 6 grand lesson is going to make you improve on a scale of a Lamborghini vs a camry then yeah go for it. We are saying that isn’t the case from our experience and have explained why. We are trying to help. 

You insist on equating price with value, and those are NOT the same things.  Price is known; value is determined by the consumer.  I don’t decide what is or is not of great value to you, and you don’t have a rational basis for knowing what is of great value to me or any other consumer.  
 

You have unilaterally decided that a particular market price lacks sufficient value for YOU to purchase that product; I think we get that.  But you only hold the OPINION that that product is overpriced relative to value for ALL consumers, which makes me glad that you aren’t in charge of the economy.

 

If the product isn’t valuable enough, then the market price will drop.  Since that isn’t the case, apparently there are consumers who DO find sufficient value in high end golf instruction, and disagree with you. 
 

Let’s move on.

[johnrobison]

11 minutes ago, MPStrat said:

 

 

Let’s rewind a bit and bring this back down to earth. I never said anyone’s game isn’t going to be improved. 

If a person has a Hank Haney poster on their wall and wants to take a lesson from him to knock it off their bucket list, more power to them.

 

But if a guy on a budget is trying to decide if he needs to see a big name, flashy,  high priced instructor (Hank Haney among others) or one who is at least as knowledgeable as Hank and significantly less money (Dan), he might choose the guy who is less money. 

 

The point of this thread is that you don’t need to see a flashy instructor to improve at golf. Some are just big names and don’t have any more to offer than some guys who charge 1/10th of their rate.
 

Being able to charge more for golf lessons isn’t an indication that they’re a better teacher or that they know more than teachers who charge less. Golfers are free to choose, but they should choose knowing this fact. 

100% agree with all of that! Well…most of it. The part about whether one guy is more or less knowledgeable than the other guy isn’t absolute, but I get your point.

 

And I also agree with your first post in this thread. Mostly. Up until you say that there isn’t an instructor on the planet worth what AMG charges. Everything you say there and above isn’t something I’m going to argue. It’s not until you start assigning value/worth that I object.

[MK7Golf21]

28 minutes ago, johnrobison said:

That’s simply not true. I have quite a bit of personal experience on both the education side and the hiring/employment side. But this is a digression from the point of this discussion - I was simply trying to remove “prestige” as a variable - so let’s not get mired in the nuances of analogies. These things tend to take the original discussion WAY off course.

 

universities is a deep can of worms esp. in the US. Once you have enough experience working at a reputable company, it holds less way less weight on the resume anyway. 

 

We don't pull out our resume of people we took lessons from on the first tee anyway, we pull out our golf game.

 

20 minutes ago, bluedot said:

You insist on equating price with value, and those are NOT the same things.  Price is known; value is determined by the consumer.  I don’t decide what is or is not of great value to you, and you don’t have a rational basis for knowing what is of great value to me or any other consumer.  
 

You have unilaterally decided that a particular market price lacks sufficient value for YOU to purchase that product; I think we get that.  But you only hold the OPINION that that product is overpriced relative to value for ALL consumers, which makes me glad that you aren’t in charge of the economy.

 

If the product isn’t valuable enough, then the market price will drop.  Since that isn’t the case, apparently there are consumers who DO find sufficient value in high end golf instruction, and disagree with you. 
 

Let’s move on.

 

My opinion of value in a golf lesson is improving. The guy charging $150 a lesson has typically been better than the guy charging $500+ a lesson in my experience in terms of improving my golf swing. That is all I'm saying.

[MK7Golf21]

btw- I see Haney is brought up. I'm one who actually took a lesson/school with Haney and was put on gears. I'll say this, most of the experience was just meeting him and hearing him speak in person. In terms of improving my swing, it was nothing ground breaking. Quite simple actually and I have received the same advice from a $50 online golf lesson.

Edited September 17, 2023 by MK7Golf21

[virtuoso]

Perceived value at the moment of the agreed upon price between both parties for the service, is by default, the perfect value.

 

John Robison wins in principal. But…..

 

Perceived value after the service has been rendered is fluid. MPStrat argues that this should be factored into the decision before the transaction (to the extent that is practical based on readily available information). He’s right.

 

If the dude starts hitting Australian hooks after the lesson, he will “perceive” that he got scammed. He will tell you he got a terrible value for his dollar. He’s wrong and right at the same time.

[Soloman1]

I would say this discussion is about branding and not unlike women and handbags. Is there more utility in a Gucci than a Costco bag? Is it a luxury brand or not?

 

The overwhelming majority of luxury goods customers are not wealthy. They aspire to look like they can afford it and buy it so others see them with it. It’s not a logical decision, it’s a decision based on ego.

 

Many people buying luxury golf instruction always find a time and place to say, “Well, I took a lesson from (fill in the blank)…” 🙂

 

And others think the most expensive must be the best, so I’ll buy the best. It’s the buyer's choice. It’s only money.

 

Most recreational players have so many things out of whack that one lesson with anyone isn’t going to reveal the secret of golf. That’s why I can reveal the secret for only 3 payments of $99. This offer is not available in stores. Call today!

[golfarb1]

On 9/14/2023 at 9:15 AM, Darom87 said:

Some MORAD influence if inquiring minds want to know... 

 

Alex Moore - can find on Skillest. 

Kevin Ralbovsky - great youtube channel and located in Honolulu.

Mike McNary - local muni in southern CA.

John Dochety - great youtube information and located in TN.  Coaches a small NAIA university locally.  

John Dochety +++

[MK7Golf21]

5 hours ago, Soloman1 said:

I would say this discussion is about branding and not unlike women and handbags. Is there more utility in a Gucci than a Costco bag? Is it a luxury brand or not?

 

The overwhelming majority of luxury goods customers are not wealthy. They aspire to look like they can afford it and buy it so others see them with it. It’s not a logical decision, it’s a decision based on ego.

 

Many people buying luxury golf instruction always find a time and place to say, “Well, I took a lesson from (fill in the blank)…” 🙂

 

And others think the most expensive must be the best, so I’ll buy the best. It’s the buyer's choice. It’s only money.

 

Most recreational players have so many things out of whack that one lesson with anyone isn’t going to reveal the secret of golf. That’s why I can reveal the secret for only 3 payments of $99. This offer is not available in stores. Call today!

luxury golf lessons, lol. Reminds me of this rich guy on one of the AMG live lesson videos. He kept telling them all these big names he had taken lessons with over the years. This guy def looked rich though 

[Nels55]

22 hours ago, MK7Golf21 said:

btw- I see Haney is brought up. I'm one who actually took a lesson/school with Haney and was put on gears. I'll say this, most of the experience was just meeting him and hearing him speak in person. In terms of improving my swing, it was nothing ground breaking. Quite simple actually and I have received the same advice from a $50 online golf lesson.

I guess we could ask Charles Barkley how much Hank Haney helped him.  Hank was so sure he could fix Charles swing that he made a TV show out of it.  Didn't work.

[MPStrat]

23 hours ago, johnrobison said:

Again, golf instruction is not a commodity market.

I had to think about this one. If we haven’t already bored everyone to death, I think this topic would be the death knell 😂 
 

Golf instruction is not oil and gas. It’s not agricultural or livestock.  But why wouldn’t it be considered a commodity?
 

 

 

 

[MK7Golf21]

8 minutes ago, Nels55 said:

I guess we could ask Charles Barkley how much Hank Haney helped him.  Hank was so sure he could fix Charles swing that he made a TV show out of it.  Didn't work.

 

yea, Haney is big on shaft plane and plane of the shaft at the top. He was trying to get Charles more laid off at the top instead of the club pointing up and down. Changing the plane of the swing is pretty hard to do, especially in a guy like Charles swing. 

 

Utley was way more simple it seems. Just do your normal backswing and throw the clubhead out at the top. Can't really dive down and hitch with that thought. Genius fix for him really.

 

[MelloYello]

23 hours ago, bluedot said:

You insist on equating price with value, and those are NOT the same things.  Price is known; value is determined by the consumer.  I don’t decide what is or is not of great value to you, and you don’t have a rational basis for knowing what is of great value to me or any other consumer.  
 

You have unilaterally decided that a particular market price lacks sufficient value for YOU to purchase that product; I think we get that.  But you only hold the OPINION that that product is overpriced relative to value for ALL consumers, which makes me glad that you aren’t in charge of the economy.

 

If the product isn’t valuable enough, then the market price will drop.  Since that isn’t the case, apparently there are consumers who DO find sufficient value in high end golf instruction, and disagree with you. 
 

Let’s move on.

 

 

I'm sure Granny's ashes have a unique "value" to the family--something pretty obvious to anyone--but that's not the type of value being discussed and it's why the point you're making isn't driving the discussion forward.

 

What's debated here can theoretically be measured by way of something like improvement (i.e. index). 

 

Granny's ashes will never have a quantifiable value to anyone outside the family for reasons that aren't emotional.

 

You're basically just saying that subjective (emotional) value exists. First, that's not news. Second, discussing golf lessons as we might some expensive form of entertainment is getting so abstract that basically any decision someone makes with their money could by that line of thinking be called "good value for that consumer." 

 

The point just doesn't advance the conversation IMHO.  

[Nels55]

15 minutes ago, MK7Golf21 said:

 

yea, Haney is big on shaft plane and plane of the shaft at the top. He was trying to get Charles more laid off at the top instead of the club pointing up and down. Changing the plane of the swing is pretty hard to do, especially in a guy like Charles swing. 

 

Utley was way more simple it seems. Just do your normal backswing and throw the clubhead out at the top. Can't really dive down and hitch with that thought. Genius fix for him really.

 

As I remember it many folks were saying that Haney could not fix Charles swing because Charles problem was mental not physical.  He needed a psychologist as opposed to a golf pro.  As it turned out the fix was mechanical or at least mostly mechanical and now Barkley can function on the golf course again.  I think that the percentage of golf teachers who could have figured out the solution is probably quite small.

[Avid_but_mediocre]

I agree with the posts that we individually determine the value of the services we receive relative to the amount paid. A few thoughts I haven't seen addressed:

 

1. Their time is finite and their services / business is not limited to teaching hour lessons. They may have determined that the hour spent producing content, doing swing reviews and working with pros (in what I assume is not an hourly rate) is more valuable, BUT lesson demand is so high that there is still a market at a very high price point. 

 

It's not dissimilar from having a hard time getting a plumber to come out for a small job. They would rather work on a big project or have such a backlog they price it so high to make it worth their while. 

 

2. There's a bit of dismissal and resentment that they only charge what they can because of "marketing" as if it's some disingenuous thing and they don't deserve to charge that much. Building a brand is the literal point! I have no way of knowing how "good" the pro three towns over is and if I like his style without paying for a lesson and committing the time. They invested time to create content that people find helpful for "free", and it helps people know their philosophy and style. Because of the reach of social media and demographics of golf there are a lot of people with money interested in their services.

 

3. To the original point of the thread, there are absolutely a lot of very good instructors out there charging far less. For all of us non-rich people, logically we should explore more cost effective lessons. It will cost far less, but will take more time to find someone you like.

 

Just my two cents!

[DataGolfer]

As instructors scale, giving hourly lessons doesn't make much sense at any rate.

 

Sean Foley mentioned on a recent episode of Subpar that he charges 10% of a pro's earnings to be their full-time coach. The 5 years he was with Tiger was the worst 5 year stretch of Tiger's career... and he still made $2,000,000 of Tiger's $20 by that measure.

 

AMG, Gankas, Woods, Chuck, et. al,  are making plenty of money from their training aids, content, subscriptions, etc.

 

Butch doesn't need to give another lesson. But if you're dying to have one, he's not going to say no to $10,000.

Edited September 18, 2023 by DataGolfer

[Santiago Golf]

52 minutes ago, Nels55 said:

As I remember it many folks were saying that Haney could not fix Charles swing because Charles problem was mental not physical.  He needed a psychologist as opposed to a golf pro.  As it turned out the fix was mechanical or at least mostly mechanical and now Barkley can function on the golf course again.  I think that the percentage of golf teachers who could have figured out the solution is probably quite small.

 

I taught a golf school and had a player in class that had a massive hitch in a very similar spot as Charles. This player could shoot in the 80s still unlike Charles with the hitch. Now he did get better over the 3 days but the hitch didn't go away but the pause was shortened. But it was the same thing as Charles, a player really over exaggerating lag and that doesn't match up with their swing. 

 

Haney was able in the show to get Charles at times to not hinge in his swing. But also at the same time, Haney was coaching Tiger and that was his focus. At the end of the day, that show was more entertainment, than an actual golf lesson.

 

95% of golfers issues are all technical/mechanical. The issue is they don't understand/know the cause of the issue creating these sometimes crazy mental issues. The other 5% do have interesting mental issues. 

 

I have caddied for players who are alright golfers (8 to 14 handicap), who have zero confidence in their game on taking on a minimal risk. I have caddied for players who are not good (8 to 14 handicap), who freak out after missing the green from 150 yards, after aiming a the most tucked pin ever.

 

For the vast majority of people a golf lesson is a golf lesson is a golf lesson. We all teach a little differently, but we can for the most part all see the same thing. The best golf coaches are the ones who can communicate effectively to vast variety of learning styles and also get that player motivate to go practice their game.  

[bluedot]

48 minutes ago, MelloYello said:

 

 

I'm sure Granny's ashes have a unique "value" to the family--something pretty obvious to anyone--but that's not the type of value being discussed and it's why the point you're making isn't driving the discussion forward.

 

What's debated here can theoretically be measured by way of something like improvement (i.e. index). 

 

Granny's ashes will never have a quantifiable value to anyone outside the family for reasons that aren't emotional.

 

You're basically just saying that subjective (emotional) value exists. First, that's not news. Second, discussing golf lessons as we might some expensive form of entertainment is getting so abstract that basically any decision someone makes with their money could by that line of thinking be called "good value for that consumer." 

 

The point just doesn't advance the conversation IMHO.  

I never mentioned "emotional" value, or anything of the sort, and what you've written is a perfect example of why economists typically use "utility" instead of "value" in discussions like this; value is too frequently conflated with price, even though they are not all the same thing.  And both value and utility, unlike price, ARE subjective.  That's the point, not only for golf lessons, but for almost any purchase you can think of.  Value is something that ONLY the individual making the purchase can decide. 

 

In a sizeable bit of irony, the OP said in his first post that he has been paying $300-500 a month for online lessons, and that he had gone from a 15 to a 5 in that time.  In fact, reading back thru the thread, the OP might have given the best endorsement not only of online lessons, but also high priced lessons in general.

 

Since neither you nor anyone else can provide a "measured way" of connecting improvement to lessons at ANY price, it's left to the consumer to figure out for themselves if lessons at a particular price point have enough value TO THEM to justify the price.  Actually, I think you and I have approached golf instruction EXACTLY the same way; I could have written your first post on this thread as my own experience over the years.  I don't think I'd be likely to ever take "lessons" other that in person with a teaching pro that I either know or know a lot about from others, and I think the OP has been spending more per year than I've spent in my life for golf lessons, and I've taken my share or more of lessons over the years from some very, very good teachers.

 

TO ME, $300-500 a month is a LOT of money, and I suspect it would be to you as well, but if I could know that I could make the sort of improvement the OP has made, I'd have to think about it.  But in any case, that's a pretty spectacular level of improvement, and not all a knock on high end, online instruction.  The OP just said he felt he had plateaued, and was looking around at alternatives; it was others who wrote that high-priced online instructors are about hype and marketing, rather than providing value.

 

If, in your opinion, that doesn't "advance the discussion", I'm ok with that.