"Be the Star of Your Own Lesson"

[virtuoso]

6 minutes ago, GolfTurkey said:

 

If I understood that correctly:

 

1. You liked the article

 

2. You're probably going to wake up with Mike Tyson's tiger in your bathroom

My comprehensive reading is a little sketchy but, whatever he said...I'm in.

[baudi]

Well, I respect the article for the opinion. I agree with the message to command your lesson.  

 

[virtuoso]

8 minutes ago, baudi said:

Well, I respect the article for the opinion. I agree with the message to command your lesson.  

 

Here's the funny part, baudi: if we allowed the student to command the lesson, it would be a heck of a lot easier than giving them an actual good lesson. The results would suck but I could walk away with a clear conscience because I was just following orders. Unfortunately for me, I really want to make them better.

[Soloman1]

2 hours ago, baudi said:

Isn't it great that he changed his mind?! Why bother at all?

To me this guy lost a lot of his credibility. 

 

Thoughtful people change their minds when presented with evidence. Dolts never change their minds. They remain convinced the earth is flat, and the ball starts along the path and curves toward the face direction.

 

 

Edited January 3 by Soloman1

[GolfTurkey]

The two biggest problems I've seen is that people don't do their due diligence re. choosing instructors and then give up way too easily when they don't instantly shoot lower scores.

 

An example is a buddy who I have been trying to convince for years to take lessons. I suggested he sees this guy who is a youngish ex tour pro whose playing career was cut short by injury and now teaches full time. He's up to speed with new developments, keeps it simple for students etc.

 

Instead he saw someone I told him to avoid. This fellow teaches part time and spews a combo of 80's Golf Digest tips and outright rubbish. E.g. he teaches the old school aim way left and swipe across it out of bunkers, (unsolicited) he told me the problem with my swing was that my hands are working left at impact instead of out towards the ball etc. (lots of problems with my swing but that's a feature not a bug).

 

One round of feeling uncomfortable and shooting a bad score later, my buddy has retired from taking lessons.

 

 

[naval2006]

I don’t think you can learn to play good golf, esp. as an adult, without lessons. 
 

Most good golfers I’ve met or played with have taken lessons in a more or less formal pattern. 
 

All the players I know who are proud of never having taken lessons are poor golfers. You see them struggling big time on the course but they’ll remind you of Bubba Watson on the 19th. 

Edited January 4 by naval2006

[st1800e]

1 hour ago, naval2006 said:

I don’t think you can’t learn to play good golf, esp. as an adult, without lessons. 

Taking out your double negative…

“I do think you can learn to play good golf, esp. as an adult, without lessons. “ 

Is that what you meant?  Probably not.  
 

1 hour ago, naval2006 said:

All the players I know who are proud of never having taken lessons are poor golfers.

Your sample of how many? , doesn’t represent reality.  
 

 

[st1800e]

Brendan’s Bio:

“Brendan Ryan, an entrepreneur and scientist, is a passionate golfer who loves his local muni. Armed with a keen interest in the game, a large network of friends in the industry, Brendan works to find and produce unique content for GolfWRX.”

 

He’s got the unique part right.  

[ThinkingPlus]

7 minutes ago, st1800e said:

Brendan’s Bio:

“Brendan Ryan, an entrepreneur and scientist, is a passionate golfer who loves his local muni. Armed with a keen interest in the game, a large network of friends in the industry, Brendan works to find and produce unique content for GolfWRX.”

 

He’s got the unique part right.  

Looks like a typo. Should have been scientologist instead of scientist. 

[MonteScheinblum]

4 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Looks like a typo. Should have been scientologist instead of scientist. 

Howard Cosell once told Mohammad Ali he was being truculent.  Ali said, “I don’t know what that is, but if it means good, I’m that.”

 

I don’t know what “unique content” means, but if means pulled out of thin air, I agree.

[baudi]

10 hours ago, virtuoso said:

Here's the funny part, baudi: if we allowed the student to command the lesson, it would be a heck of a lot easier than giving them an actual good lesson. The results would suck but I could walk away with a clear conscience because I was just following orders. Unfortunately for me, I really want to make them better.

Yeah well, that is a good remark. Pupil/teacher is not a domsub relationship.

Nor does it imply that the student is telling how  and what to teach. That would be the other way round.

Here's my view:

The pro active attitude of the student is a lead for analysis. Preferably not solution based.

Then if the teacher listens well s/he can come with a reaction (and possibly rephrase) the situation which might lead to a deeper root cause or a more comprehensive approach. 

This will shift the perspective. From there student and teacher can make a match and consider the possible solutions at hand and set out a roadmap. And afterwards decide to separate ways or establish a relationship. 

The goal is to manage expectancies at both sides.

Golf is data driven so supporting the facts can start at a baseline measurement and along the way.  

 

If the student keeps his 'command the lesson' attitude I am positive that his or her engagement/commitment will grow stronger and that the added value will go up.   

 

[baudi]

9 hours ago, Soloman1 said:

 

Thoughtful people change their minds when presented with evidence. Dolts never change their minds. They remain convinced the earth is flat, and the ball starts along the path and curves toward the face direction.

 

 

If the point of view drastically changes, I like it when some one speaks out why or how the new insight got there. Especially for expressions in the public domain. 

 

[virtuoso]

3 hours ago, baudi said:

Yeah well, that is a good remark. Pupil/teacher is not a domsub relationship.

Nor does it imply that the student is telling how  and what to teach. That would be the other way round.

Here's my view:

The pro active attitude of the student is a lead for analysis. Preferably not solution based.

Then if the teacher listens well s/he can come with a reaction (and possibly rephrase) the situation which might lead to a deeper root cause or a more comprehensive approach. 

This will shift the perspective. From there student and teacher can make a match and consider the possible solutions at hand and set out a roadmap. And afterwards decide to separate ways or establish a relationship. 

The goal is to manage expectancies at both sides.

Golf is data driven so supporting the facts can start at a baseline measurement and along the way.  

 

If the student keeps his 'command the lesson' attitude I am positive that his or her engagement/commitment will grow stronger and that the added value will go up.   

 

I think my fear is that I go ahead and do all that, but then they are still slicing the ball. So I generally just start telling them how to fix stuff.

[Soloman1]

1 hour ago, virtuoso said:

I think my fear is that I go ahead and do all that, but then they are still slicing the ball. So I generally just start telling them how to fix stuff.

 

Apparently you're underthinking it.

 

 

Edited January 4 by Soloman1

[jonsnow]

6 hours ago, MonteScheinblum said:

Howard Cosell once told Mohammad Ali he was being truculent.  Ali said, “I don’t know what that is, but if it means good, I’m that.”

 

I don’t know what “unique content” means, but if means pulled out of thin air, I agree.

 

[MK7Golf21]

16 hours ago, baudi said:

Well, I respect the article for the opinion. I agree with the message to command your lesson.  

 

 

Not sure about commanding the lesson as the student, you are paying them to teach what they see in your swing/know after all. Should be open and honest during the lesson though. Maybe if you're a tour player or top player in the world you can use them more of a consultant. 

 

 

[DShepley]

I've spent a lot of time on driving ranges and I've witnessed some very good lessons and in truth probably more that I thought weren't very good.  I started playing when I was 18, coming from a competitive baseball background, and taught myself by reading, watching and absorbing every bit of golf info I could get my hands on.  That summer I got a job at our local golf course which allowed me to play unlimited golf and hit unlimited range balls.  I stayed at that job for 5 years and my game improved very quickly mostly through repetition of what I found worked, (a lot of trial and error), but mainly because I have a competitive nature and I lived on the range and course.  I took a very analytical approach because the game wasn't natural for me.  I read until I found something that made sense to me and tried it...if it worked I added it to the toolbox and moved on.  The trouble as everyone knows is that there is a lot of conflicting advice so a good portion of my improvement / success, was probably luck...you know, luck that I didn't fall down the wrong rabbit hole.  Here is the rub though....When I listen in on the lessons going on beside me on the range, I am pretty quick do dismiss the ones that don't present analytical reasons of 'why'. I write that pro off as being not very good but to be fair, that same pro wouldn't likely take that approach with me.  In my experience, most of the lessons I would deem not very good, are being given to complete beginners where they aren't asking analytical questions, they are rather listening...they don't have a background understanding of the swing so the lesson looks very different.  To that complete beginner, however poor or great the instruction, there is likely some part of it that makes them a little bit better because they are starting at the bottom.  Because everyone is unique in the way they learn, it's hard to judge whether a lesson you are witnessing beside you is good or bad because you are always looking through your own lens.  So...we watch a lesson beside us and because it wouldn't work for us, say...that guy is a  'Charlatan'...but....did that player get a little bit better and would that pro communicate differently if you took a lesson with them? I guess my point is that while there certainly are bad instructors, there are probably fewer than we think and even a bad instructor can move a complete beginner to a certain level of improvement.

Edited January 4 by DShepley

[bortass]

To be successful, just my simple opinion, it is a partnership between teacher and student( assume that one lesson is not the cure). The joke about marriage counselor to Monte's 'Can't we both be happy' comment isn't far off base. There needs to be communication, responsibility, and trust.

 

Most people have a goal/reason why they take a lesson. They need to communicate that to the teacher, preferably when setting up the first lesson. The teacher should be taking what the student said into account. The teacher may have to then try to manage expectations during the lesson. Some golfers are good enough to know what their issue is, some are not and may be way off base in what they think the problem is. I could tell a teacher that I really need to fix my release. He watches me swing and he tell me 'your backswing is too short. You need to fix that first.'

 

I could 'take command' and say no I need to fix my release, so we agree to disagree and part ways. Or I listen to him with a semi-open mind, and see where it goes. I work on it and see improvements and the basis of trust starts to form. I feel like he knows what he's talking about and he sees I actually put some time in working on it. Things can progress from there.

 

As a student, I have the responsibility of putting in the work and giving my teacher feedback 'I don't understand or that drill doesn't seem to be working or it's going great, is it time for another lesson?'. The teachers responsibility is obviously teach the student, but also manage expectations, there's rarely a quick fix. Both have the responsibility of listening to the other.

 

There's a vetting process from both sides early on. Bad students exist, bad teachers exist, the wrong teacher for me exists, etc. If it clicks, a long term teacher/student relationship can form.

 

TLDR; It takes two to tango.

[naval2006]

13 hours ago, st1800e said:

 

Your sample of how many? , doesn’t represent reality.  
 

 

Not at all. Just my experience at club level. 

[ferrispgm]

On 1/4/2024 at 8:39 AM, bortass said:

To be successful, just my simple opinion, it is a partnership between teacher and student( assume that one lesson is not the cure). The joke about marriage counselor to Monte's 'Can't we both be happy' comment isn't far off base. There needs to be communication, responsibility, and trust.

 

Most people have a goal/reason why they take a lesson. They need to communicate that to the teacher, preferably when setting up the first lesson. The teacher should be taking what the student said into account. The teacher may have to then try to manage expectations during the lesson. Some golfers are good enough to know what their issue is, some are not and may be way off base in what they think the problem is. I could tell a teacher that I really need to fix my release. He watches me swing and he tell me 'your backswing is too short. You need to fix that first.'

 

I could 'take command' and say no I need to fix my release, so we agree to disagree and part ways. Or I listen to him with a semi-open mind, and see where it goes. I work on it and see improvements and the basis of trust starts to form. I feel like he knows what he's talking about and he sees I actually put some time in working on it. Things can progress from there.

 

As a student, I have the responsibility of putting in the work and giving my teacher feedback 'I don't understand or that drill doesn't seem to be working or it's going great, is it time for another lesson?'. The teachers responsibility is obviously teach the student, but also manage expectations, there's rarely a quick fix. Both have the responsibility of listening to the other.

 

There's a vetting process from both sides early on. Bad students exist, bad teachers exist, the wrong teacher for me exists, etc. If it clicks, a long term teacher/student relationship can form.

 

TLDR; It takes two to tango.

Well said.  That why I like working with Monte as far as seeing improvements and communication.  Each lesson at the clinic is basically...what's your miss? Here's what's going on, here's a feel or movement to correct it, hit the opposite miss, and Monte chimes in, "Not gonna do x anymore doing that are you? People have an inclination to think improvement means you will hit it perfectly right away...not that improvement means minimizing your miss and gradually learning to hit it better during the process.  That's where management of expectations and dedication comes in. 

 

I've only had 1 online lesson, but Dan is great at the communication as well.  Pretty much said I had 2 options.  1 would seem like an easier change but I would get a lot worse in the interim though my swing would look more conventional or I could go the 2nd route which would be easier for me to implement and it would get certain parts to match better.  He chose the 2nd route and it's been great.

[Hawkeye77]

On 1/1/2024 at 5:59 PM, iacas said:

https://www.golfwrx.com/729152/ryan-be-the-star-of-your-golf-lesson/

 

I wanted to start a topic on that article, and see what y'all had to say about it.

 

The short version from my side of things is that the author makes several comments that made me scratch my head, chuckle, or some combination of both (these are all quotes):

 

1. The scenario typically unfolds like this: you arrive, hit a few shots, receive some compliments from the instructor, and then endure a 10-15 minute discourse about your swing.
2. The more money you spend, the more the conversation veers into technical jargon, referencing “data” from devices like Trackman or FlightScope.
3. The instructor proceeds to explain how difficult it is to implement a specific change, offering a random adjustment, and if fortunate, a practice drill, before moving on swiftly to the next lesson.
4. Finally, a system teacher understands the cause and effect of patterns and movements on trajectory, curve, and distance. Sadly, 99 percent of instructors fall into the method or non-system categories, and 100 percent of these are charlatans.
5. As a result; that lesson that went well two weeks ago has all of a sudden turned into a total golf swing overhaul.
6. better players should tackle multiple skills in a session.
7. Once you’ve nailed the basics of arm structure and club face awareness, the rest isn’t really that hard.
8. Too many instructors want to be the stars and overhaul your swing.

 

I had to work really hard to post only the most egregious parts of the article, lest I just copy and paste the whole thing.

 

The numbered quotes are pretty much the article which is pretty brief but IMO manages to be nothing more than a shallow dive into clickbait and overgeneralized descriptions damning most golf instruction and offering not much in the way of any real advice.  Kind of a disappointing bit of nothing to tout as a lead kind of article for the site.  It's a crap article.

 

People have good experiences, people have bad experiences. Personalities mesh, they don't mesh.  Students actually try, some don't.  Some students can make improvements, some just won't and all sorts of things in and around and in-between.  

 

My experience since the age of 12 is I've had instruction from a total of 6 instructors.  One lesson with a guy who parked his car and operated out of his trunk at our course for a week in the summer of '72, lol.  A free lesson when I got a set of Wilson Tour Staffs as a graduation present in college at the club my folks belonged to at that time.  Several years later got into actually wanting to improve and a few lessons at the club my wife and I joined on a "junior" kind of deal.  Lessons with a couple of local pros over the past 30 years where I live now and lessons, continuing from time to time, with Monte.  I've neither had nor seen the kinds of experiences that are supposed to be the "standard" for bad instruction the article wants to get attention by claiming and frankly it's just a bunch of blah, blah, blah.  Other than the first guy, "keep your head down and just do this" all those years ago, lol, I've enjoyed everyone I've worked with and gotten something out of it.  Monte has taken me from a 13 to as low as a 5, and I'm a stubborn fix, lol.  My local pro still knows how to get me right when I've slipped a bit and he knows what my goals are and has seen me enough to know when things are off and why. There are plenty of instructors, PGA and otherwise, who are members here who have taught, still teach - I've never seen any of what is described as the "norm" in the article.  Then again, lots of folks like to make the same old/new criticisms and yes .  .  .  there are bad instructors by whatever definition out there just like in any other profession and no fun to read about bad experiences.  But in fairness, there are the folks that blame all instructors because they went to six in two years and couldn't be fixed, or went to one, had one lesson, then jump on here immediately to get all sorts of advice and second guessing of what the pro said or didn't say or how it clashed with the ideas of some YouTube golf dancing instructor, and of course that's a one way ticket to disaster, but it happens all the time, and squeaky wheels . . . 

 

Sure, take ownership - get a good fit for personality, see someone who knows their stuff, have reasonable expectations, put in the work.  "Duh" kind of stuff, but the nature of golf makes us all think we are one tip away from being Jack Nicklaus, so most of that goes out the window the minute we grip a club.

 

This article presumes students are going to have problems, and frankly, sets up failure in terms of what their mindset should be before they ever go to a lesson, because it presumes they should be suspicious and not trusting of the teaching profession as the starting point.

 

There, more than I've said in six months but better than talking about the state of the game and Saudi Arabia.

 

 

Edited January 5 by Hawkeye77

[mikpga]

Just an article which states an opinion…

 

Golfers will continue to experience “the good, the bad, and the ugly” when it comes to taking lessons…

 

Hopefully there will be less “ugly”, and with today’s ability to get instant feedback and reviews, finding the “good” should be easier than ever…

 

 

[iacas]

3 hours ago, mikpga said:

Just an article which states an opinion…

… poorly.

[virtuoso]

3 hours ago, mikpga said:

Just an article which states an opinion…

 

Golfers will continue to experience “the good, the bad, and the ugly” when it comes to taking lessons…

 

Hopefully there will be less “ugly”, and with today’s ability to get instant feedback and reviews, finding the “good” should be easier than ever…

 

 

Presumably, if 99 percent of instructors are charlatans, it can’t get too much easier to find a good one.

[iacas]

More from the same author in the same vein:

 

https://www.golfwrx.com/738217/ryan-lessons-from-the-worst-golf-instructor-in-america/

 

Calls himself a "scientist" but can't even get the "energy" part of his article right (plus, what the heck is he even talking bout there)? Too much to get into detail picking that article apart. Suffice to say, like the one that started this topic, it's not a good article.

[virtuoso]

This one was worse than the first one.

[MonteScheinblum]

I’m torn.  I’m the opposite of everything he says in the article.

 

I hate cliches

I tell everyone this is a two way discussion, not I’m smart, you’re dumb and just do what I say.

I tell everyone if we both do our jobs, they won’t need me anymore.

 

etc.

 

However, seeing as how most hate the author’s point of view, maybe I suck.

[nikos74]

The way I see it is there are probably four different swing styles in total:

 

1)David Leadbetter A swing; 80% of instructors use it.

2)Stack and tilt; 10% usage

3)Jim Hardy/Ben Hogan OPS; 5% usage

4)Moe Norman OPS; 5% usage

 

Nobody likes to be on the unpopular side when they think their method is better than the others.  But it's like fashion in clothes and cars that changes and some/many people will laugh at you for being resilient to change.  In the end who cares?

 

So it's not really a case of instructors being bad or good, it's a case of finding one that matches your playing style.

Edited May 2 by nikos74

[virtuoso]

39 minutes ago, MonteScheinblum said:

I’m torn.  I’m the opposite of everything he says in the article.

 

I hate cliches

I tell everyone this is a two way discussion, not I’m smart, you’re dumb and just do what I say.

I tell everyone if we both do our jobs, they won’t need me anymore.

 

etc.

 

However, seeing as how most hate the author’s point of view, maybe I suck.

The problem is that the author doesn't even know what the author's point of view is.

 

[iacas]

3 hours ago, nikos74 said:

The way I see it is there are probably four different swing styles in total:

 

1)David Leadbetter A swing; 80% of instructors use it.

2)Stack and tilt; 10% usage

3)Jim Hardy/Ben Hogan OPS; 5% usage

4)Moe Norman OPS; 5% usage

 

Huh?

 

3 hours ago, virtuoso said:

The problem is that the author doesn't even know what the author's point of view is.

 

That's well put, IMO.