Flashy vs more anonymous instructors

[Santiago Golf]

9 minutes ago, DataGolfer said:

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.

 

I would argue George makes most of his money on the mat (roughly averages $500/hour and is full for 40 weeks a year, for 8 hours over 4 day, that a $600k) ... but as I type this, I questioning why I'm even typing this

[MPStrat]

2 minutes ago, Avid_but_mediocre said:

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.

If you scour YouTube for golf videos, you will find that there is a ton of deceptive marketing. In some fields, if a company makes claims that some golf instructors make in their marketing, they would be subject to huge fines.

[PostandGhost]

Would a teacher's market cap be a terrible way to analyze a teacher's value?  It seems like there are some teachers that charge $500 per hour that don't have the market cap of another teacher who might only charge $200 per hour.  

[Zitlow]

I'm in the minority here but I do believe that swing flaws are conceptual problems. Fix the bad mental imagery caused by years of bad instruction by showing them the how's and why's of moving a golf club.

 

Of course the Golf Instruction Industrial Complex wouldn't be very happy if someone could learn how to efficiently swing a golf club without a myriad of swing thoughts in half a bucket. A whole bucket if they're a slow learner. 

 

[MK7Golf21]

43 minutes ago, bluedot said:

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.

 

 

 

 

 

That's not true at all. No one is saying they don't provide value, of course they are decent instructors and provide value. I'm surprised you got that from this thread at all. It's just the value (swing improvement) is normally no different than the full time instructor charging $150 an hour instead of $500 an hour.

 

 

Example, I could be a golf instructor who charges $150 an hour and be decent. I move to an area of highly skilled golfers. Start up an Instagram and tell some of these awesome golfers I'll give them a free lesson on my trackman. I film them making a swing and throw it on my Instagram while being very charismatic giving the illusion I built that swing. Sooner or later I will have people knocking my door down because they think the value is much greater based on that.

 

Same thing with those top instructor magazine lists that everyone sees, they are political most of the time and not based on their value being greater than others.

 

 

[MelloYello]

2 hours ago, bluedot said:

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.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure the discussion was based on a hypothetical imagining two different lesson programs that both produced the same experience & outcome for the student and which could thus be differentiated by only their cost. You seem to be reading more into it.

 

And yes, FWIW, you've essentially based your posts on the idea that a particular student might draw from a lesson package value extending from factors that include the subjective, human, emotional, etc. Use any phrase you want to label it. I think it's a weak point to make. Either you think it's a revelation or you think others somehow don't get it. Neither pushes the discussion forward IMHO. 

 

Maybe it's rude to say, but that's my take on it. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited September 18, 2023 by MelloYello

[GungHoGolf]

Speaking of marketing…

 

[MelloYello]

Moving back to the topic of golf instruction I'll say a few more things....

 

#1

Most of these high-profile, high-$$$ instructors manage golf academies. For this reason, you're more likely to find that getting a lesson with the head guy is hard (e.g. expensive).

 

If I go to an academy because of the name associated with it (i.e. Harmon, Haney, Bender, McLean, Pelz, Leadbetter, etc.), I'm very unlikely to work with the man himself and much more likely to work with some assistant who does day-to-day lessons and can use the technology on-site to conduct a lesson.  

 

#2

I think it's infinitely better to spend your $$$ on golf instruction than a lot of other things. Nobody ever got stupid reading too many books. Nobody ever went psychotic because of having too many positive social interactions. A little bit of hard work is usually good for people. Self-improvement tends to compound over time. 

 

If a developing student is convinced that a series of lessons will help with some particular facet of their journey, I personally tend to think it's almost impossible to over-rate the importance of it and to draw a line in the sand because of a few measly dollars. 

 

#3

If I'm going to waste a few hundred dollars, I'd rather waste it pursuing my passion, risking that I might learn something, building a connection with someone, and generally just donating to the cause that is golf in my area. 

 

We can do a lot worse than (god forbid) spending a few too many dollars helping golf instructors and golf institutions we actually still have.

 

.

Edited September 18, 2023 by MelloYello

[Avid_but_mediocre]

1 hour ago, Zitlow said:

I'm in the minority here but I do believe that swing flaws are conceptual problems. Fix the bad mental imagery caused by years of bad instruction by showing them the how's and why's of moving a golf club.

 

As a newish golfer, this has started to really resonate with me. The more holistic view I get of the swing and interrelated parts, the more comfortable I feel over the ball. That's not to say I am qualified or capable of teaching myself!

[Avid_but_mediocre]

1 hour ago, MK7Golf21 said:

 

That's not true at all. No one is saying they don't provide value, of course they are decent instructors and provide value. I'm surprised you got that from this thread at all. It's just the value (swing improvement) is normally no different than the full time instructor charging $150 an hour instead of $500 an hour.

 

 

Example, I could be a golf instructor who charges $150 an hour and be decent. I move to an area of highly skilled golfers. Start up an Instagram and tell some of these awesome golfers I'll give them a free lesson on my trackman. I film them making a swing and throw it on my Instagram while being very charismatic giving the illusion I built that swing. Sooner or later I will have people knocking my door down because they think the value is much greater based on that.

 

Same thing with those top instructor magazine lists that everyone sees, they are political most of the time and not based on their value being greater than others.

 

 

 

I agree with you entirely, but where this thread is getting hung up is the definition of "Value".

 

Some are saying there is no objective difference that justifies a $150 and $500 lesson. 

 

Others are saying that if someone believes it's worth it, it's worth it to THEM.

 

Then there's a sub discussion where some don't like the idea that people are marketing themselves - in your case and Mpstrats latest comment, assuming it's misleading or deceptive (which I agree happens, but is not universally true).

 

As this forum well knows, the process of learning the golf swing to a functional degree is not easy and learning styles vary. Short of a coach teaching someone fundamentally wrong information, I don't think we can really judge a player's coach selection decision.

 

Bringing it way back, coaching "profile" does not equal quality, and coaching decisions should not be made on that basis. 

[Avid_but_mediocre]

2 hours ago, MPStrat said:

If you scour YouTube for golf videos, you will find that there is a ton of deceptive marketing. In some fields, if a company makes claims that some golf instructors make in their marketing, they would be subject to huge fines.

 

I completely agree that happens, but it doesn't make marketing ones coaching practice universally bad. 

 

If Monte didn't engage on social media, I wouldn't know who he is and would not have purchased multiple video series.

 

The comment you quoted was specifically about AMG - do you feel they are misleading in their teaching? I'm not qualified to tell, so would genuinely appreciate that POV if there are areas they push that are questionable (I'm relatively new to golf).

[MPStrat]

49 minutes ago, Avid_but_mediocre said:

 

I completely agree that happens, but it doesn't make marketing ones coaching practice universally bad. 

Agreed. I think their marketing is second to no one. But good marketing doesn’t mean good instructor. Those two things can be very different.

 

49 minutes ago, Avid_but_mediocre said:

The comment you quoted was specifically about AMG - do you feel they are misleading in their teaching? I'm not qualified to tell, so would genuinely appreciate that POV if there are areas they push that are questionable (I'm relatively new to golf).

 

I don’t know if I would say they are “misleading in their teaching” - they teach what they think is best for their students. 

 

It’s more so the obnoxious and misleading video titles.

 

 

 

Also, I think a beginning golfer could easily make assumptions that these guys are miracle workers or have all of the answers by seeing all of the cool tech, data and awesome graphics on their videos. That is their intention. That is what they are selling. Nothing wrong with that part of it. But it’s not true.

[virtuoso]

3 hours ago, Zitlow said:

I'm in the minority here but I do believe that swing flaws are conceptual problems. Fix the bad mental imagery caused by years of bad instruction by showing them the how's and why's of moving a golf club.

 

Of course the Golf Instruction Industrial Complex wouldn't be very happy if someone could learn how to efficiently swing a golf club without a myriad of swing thoughts in half a bucket. A whole bucket if they're a slow learner. 

 

I have a good concept of how to swing the club. It's still really hard for me to change my swing.

[Nels55]

3 minutes ago, virtuoso said:

I have a good concept of how to swing the club. It's still really hard for me to change my swing.

Go see @Zitlow and you will optimize your swing with one large bucket of balls!

[KD1]

2 hours ago, GungHoGolf said:

Speaking of marketing…

 

 

I couldn't quite place where I'd seen their logo before... until I saw it driving down the highway! Dangerously similar

[Soloman1]

2 hours ago, MelloYello said:

Nobody ever got stupid reading too many books.

 

I don’t think that applies to the Internet. 😉

 

[MelloYello]

30 minutes ago, Soloman1 said:

 

I don’t think that applies to the Internet. 😉

 

 

Correct.

 

Perhaps the opposite would be true of the internet. 🙂

[Nels55]

26 minutes ago, MelloYello said:

 

Correct.

 

Perhaps the opposite would be true of the internet. 🙂

What about golf forums on the internet?  Is everyone here getting stupider?  Hmmm...

 

The truth is that there is a lot of stupid stuff printed in books also to it is a good idea to choose wisely same as internet consumption.  

[virtuoso]

2 hours ago, Nels55 said:

Go see @Zitlow and you will optimize your swing with one large bucket of balls!

I can make it through one large.

[golfarb1]

2 hours ago, virtuoso said:

I have a good concept of how to swing the club. It's still really hard for me to change my swing.

The reason is simple 

To change motor patterns requires creating 

new neural pathways in the brain . 
At first these neural pathways are weak and need numerous correct repetitions .

But that is hardly the only problem .

Because your old incorrect neural pathways 

are strong and well ingrained , there is a tendency to revert back to these old incorrect patterns .

To avoid doing so requires some type or feedback , preferably via a trained eye for confirmation . 

 

[virtuoso]

5 minutes ago, golfarb1 said:

The reason is simple 

To change motor patterns requires creating 

new neural pathways in the brain . 
At first these neural pathways are weak and need numerous correct repetitions .

But that is hardly the only problem .

Because your old incorrect neural pathways 

are strong and well ingrained , there is a tendency to revert back to these old incorrect patterns .

To avoid doing so requires some type or feedback , preferably via a trained eye for confirmation . 

 

Yes, that's the point I was trying to make.

[MelloYello]

29 minutes ago, Nels55 said:

What about golf forums on the internet?  Is everyone here getting stupider?  Hmmm...

 

The truth is that there is a lot of stupid stuff printed in books also to it is a good idea to choose wisely same as internet consumption.  

 

Spending too much time on the internet (including this or any other forum) is definitely unhealthy. 

[Zitlow]

If people don't know how to synchronize all the major joints to swing the club using an athletic dynamic motion they can spend a lifetime trying to create new neural pathways and still end up searching for gimmicks and band aid fixes. 

[Nels55]

3 hours ago, Zitlow said:

If people don't know how to synchronize all the major joints to swing the club using an athletic dynamic motion they can spend a lifetime trying to create new neural pathways and still end up searching for gimmicks and band aid fixes. 

Major joints made me think of Bob Marley... R.I.P.

 

There are 3 main types of joints in the human body and it seems that when you say major joints you are referring to synovial joints?

 

Here is a good description of the various joints:

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/body/25137-joints

[The Pearl]

20 hours ago, Zitlow said:

I'm in the minority here but I do believe that swing flaws are conceptual problems. Fix the bad mental imagery caused by years of bad instruction by showing them the how's and why's of moving a golf club.

 

Of course the Golf Instruction Industrial Complex wouldn't be very happy if someone could learn how to efficiently swing a golf club without a myriad of swing thoughts in half a bucket. A whole bucket if they're a slow learner. 

 

 

Manuel De Le Torre would be proud.

[The Pearl]

Golf instruction suffers from the same affliction of many other "endeavors":

 

1. There are multiple ways to improve lending to the consumer suffering from the "paradox of choice."

2. Each instructor has their own idea on how best to do it and are completely dug in on their method being the best always fitting a square peg into a round hole. "Only I have the secret".

3. The industry is subject to the "expert problem". Hank Haney might charge you $5K and never fix your problem. Your local 3rd assistant pro might solve your problem in 3 minutes on the range.

4. Consumer's don't know what they don't know. For example, the biggest decision you can make is whether you will go down the path of club-focused instruction or body-focused instruction.

5. Not all golfer's taking lessons want to improve. Some golfer's seek out famous instructors so they can say they took a lesson from a famous instructor. 

6. Complexity almost always sells better than simple. You can charge higher prices for complex. Along the same lines, golf instruction suffers from the "Pablo Picasso" problem whereby the customer is upset at paying a high price for a simple solution. 

 

In terms of "money" spent, I would suggest "inverting" the problem.  What would you pay to improve if you knew the improvement was permanent?  What would you pay for 15 extra yards? How about 4 less putts a round?  What would you pay if you consistently shot-mid 80s and you suddenly were able to break 80 every round? Obviously the difference is the "unknown" in golf instruction. 

 

Human's are a strange breed. Some people won't buy ProV1s yet have $1000 car payments.

 

After playing golf for 50 years I have come to the conclusion that golfer's get exactly what they want out of the game.  Most people really don't want to improve and they really like sucking at golf. They get other things out of the game. They like to hunt balls, tinker with gear, try 50 different things during the round, hang with their buddies, play the victim on the course, etc. 

 

In general, I think 90% of golf instruction is like prescribing chemotherapy for a head cold. But that is for a different thread.

 

[MelloYello]

20 minutes ago, The Pearl said:

Golf instruction suffers from the same affliction of many other "endeavors":

 

1. There are multiple ways to improve lending to the consumer suffering from the "paradox of choice."

2. Each instructor has their own idea on how best to do it and are completely dug in on their method being the best always fitting a square peg into a round hole. "Only I have the secret".

3. The industry is subject to the "expert problem". Hank Haney might charge you $5K and never fix your problem. Your local 3rd assistant pro might solve your problem in 3 minutes on the range.

4. Consumer's don't know what they don't know. For example, the biggest decision you can make is whether you will go down the path of club-focused instruction or body-focused instruction.

5. Not all golfer's taking lessons want to improve. Some golfer's seek out famous instructors so they can say they took a lesson from a famous instructor. 

6. Complexity almost always sells better than simple. You can charge higher prices for complex. Along the same lines, golf instruction suffers from the "Pablo Picasso" problem whereby the customer is upset at paying a high price for a simple solution. 

 

In terms of "money" spent, I would suggest "inverting" the problem.  What would you pay to improve if you knew the improvement was permanent?  What would you pay for 15 extra yards? How about 4 less putts a round?  What would you pay if you consistently shot-mid 80s and you suddenly were able to break 80 every round? Obviously the difference is the "unknown" in golf instruction. 

 

Human's are a strange breed. Some people won't buy ProV1s yet have $1000 car payments.

 

After playing golf for 50 years I have come to the conclusion that golfer's get exactly what they want out of the game.  Most people really don't want to improve and they really like sucking at golf. They get other things out of the game. They like to hunt balls, tinker with gear, try 50 different things during the round, hang with their buddies, play the victim on the course, etc. 

 

In general, I think 90% of golf instruction is like prescribing chemotherapy for a head cold. But that is for a different thread.

 

 

Great post. 

 

I think a big problem is the tendency towards complexity -- that's just as much to do with the student wanting to believe (for ego's sake) that things are just so difficult that nobody would be able to do it properly. 

 

Instruction is always for the people who can't get somewhere by themselves--and mind you, I've taken several lessons. Sometimes, you just have to put the ego aside and ask for help. 

 

It really does start with admitting you have a problem beyond what you can fix by yourself. If you start with humility and a sincere desire to learn, things will work out just fine. 

 

Too many people blame complexity. They blame instructors. Truth is, those are rarely the issue. 

[Nels55]

56 minutes ago, The Pearl said:

 

Manuel De Le Torre would be proud.

I have spent a lot of time in the past trying to implement Manuel de la Torre's teaching.  I have the book and videos.  Even more time trying to apply Earnest Jones' teaching.  I have Ron Sisson's e-book and have watched and tried to apply his videos.  Those guys all teach very similar ideas of external focus moving the implement correctly and letting everything else take care of itself.  I really like the idea and it always works to some extent at first but over time I just get worse and worse until I cannot hit the ball at all and I go back to some internal swing thought in order to get some sort of swing working again.

 

I don't believe that I am alone in this cycle but I suppose that most folks are not dumb enough to keep trying something that does not work.   

[DataGolfer]

22 hours ago, Santiago Golf said:

 

I would argue George makes most of his money on the mat (roughly averages $500/hour and is full for 40 weeks a year, for 8 hours over 4 day, that a $600k) ... but as I type this, I questioning why I'm even typing this

 

You can argue it... George himself in a recent NLU episode says he makes most of his money through his website and training aids.

[Nels55]

9 minutes ago, MelloYello said:

Too many people blame complexity. They blame instructors. Truth is, those are rarely the issue

I would say that complexity can be a good thing.  Use of 3D and force plate analysis can be very helpful when the person doing the analysis knows what they are doing.  A good teacher will make simple swing corrections based on 'complex' data.

 

However in my experience when lessons fail the instructor is often to blame and this is especially true of 'method' instructors.  Golf pros tend to teach the swing mechanics that work for them.  They know that what they teach is correct because it works for them and for some percentage of their students.  They also have stories of fixing the swings of students who got screwed up by other instructors which makes them even more right.  It's a common phenomenon and students who don't succeed are blamed for being lazy or stupid or whatever. 

 

The best teachers are humble and try to tailor the teaching to the student.