"There's a lot of bad instruction out there"

[badpokerbadgolf]

Is there a list of youtube instructors that are generally considered good from a consensus of good golfers?  Or is the whole thing subjective and there is no universal truth to what makes a good golf swing?

 

 

My favorite instructors, in no particular order

 

Monte

Eric Cogorno

Grant Horvat

Padraig Harrington

 

 

 

 

[Michael Shanker]

AMG

[Gamble Gamble]

It depends what you're looking for...

 

Monte - great all around and his superpower is making complicated ideas simple with a dash of sarcasm

AMG - great at getting granular regarding what happens in good golf swings

 

Some other Good ones:

Cogorno 

Chris Ryan 

Craig Hanson (world class golf)

Grant Horvat's video with Mickelson is fantastic

 

[GungHoGolf]

All the above, plus Adam Porzak.

 

And my guilty pleasure is watching Milo Lines, even though I can’t move like that (it’s a fitness thing, lol).

[skim4]

Bryson Dechambini - can't speak to the "goodness" of his instruction as I dont know much but he seems to know a thing or two. 

[GoGoErky]

31 minutes ago, GungHoGolf said:

All the above, plus Adam Porzak.

 

And my guilty pleasure is watching Milo Lines, even though I can’t move like that (it’s a fitness thing, lol).

Agree

[Pepperturbo]

I like two of the names on the OPs list. 

 

In the real world, and online these days, what constitutes good or bad has become subjective to many people; yes there is universal truth, but you have to have reference points to rely upon to help identify it.  Many people don't know right or good from wrong or bad, so they buy into whatever is convenient, or if it's ONLINE, it's fact... LOL

 

IMO, digital media content can change overnight, whereas authored books have a far greater chance of being worth your time.  Back in the 90s I chose to use 3-books (Hogans Five, Seve Ballesteros Natural, and Faldo, A Swing...) to teach myself golf.  And I still have and use those three books for reference, on my desk.

Edited July 17 by Pepperturbo

[txbadger]

I agree with OP that there is absolutely a ton of bad instruction out there on YT and the like, but unfortunately there are also a great number of instructors (talking in person instruction) that even though they have credentials, they are just as bad.  Then there are some that teach a method or at least aspects of the swing that work great for some, but not so much for others.   

 

I understand there are certain moves/sequences that a large number of great players have, but there still are some grey areas or conflicting instruction even amongst these respected instructors.   At least the example that comes to mind is the behavior of the trail shoulder/upper arm.   There are instructors/pros that I respect that advise "packing" that trail shoulder/upper arm closer to torso (maybe not pinned to, but still close) on backswing while others that teach getting as much width as possible (extending trail arm).    Maybe it comes down to individual abilities to make such moves work but considering how many different high quality golf swings there are it isn't surprising that there are strong opinions on who is good and who is bad at instruction. 

 

 

 

Edited July 17 by txbadger

[MountainKing]

The good instructors all tend to teach the same stuff, they just use varying methods to get the job done.  Despite what most may think, there really is only so many ways to swing a golf club correctly. 

[Mike_C]

26 minutes ago, txbadger said:

Then there are some that teach a method or at least aspects of the swing that work great for some, but not so much for others.   

 

A good instructor recognizes that you have to build the core fundamentals around each individual, everyone can't swing exactly the same.    I haven't had a lesson since I was in high school. I first took some from a real old school guy, he tweaked a few things, focused on the basics, and really helped me.   He got sick and couldn't teach anymore, I started going to a guy who had a great reputation, but he had "his way" to swing, which was very different from how I did.  I was more of a Nicklaus/Ben Crenshaw long and high swinger, he tried to turn me into more like Tom Kite, screwed me up royally. 

 

Just from videos, the guys I like to watch and think have helped me are Monte, Padraig Harrington, and I would add Mike Malaska. 

[GungHoGolf]

I forgot to mention Dana Dahlquist earlier, who I think has my favorite teaching style / communication skills out of everyone out there. 

 

This IG post reminded me of him, and is a good example of his “bedside manner”:

 

https://www.instagram.com/tv/CGqCDO0ixqL/?igsh=MWQ2YTh0dTlsZDNj

[Sp4zRX]

2 hours ago, badpokerbadgolf said:

My favorite instructors, in no particular order

 

Monte

Eric Cogorno

Grant Horvat

Padraig Harrington

 

 

My list is similar except I would drop Grant and replace with AMG. 

[Ghostwedge]

The golf swing and golf instruction doesn't fall into the "universal truth" dept.

Some of us like PT use the bound book method to.learn, some of us need physical hands on over and over drilled instruction. Some of us prefer Harmon,  some prefer Gankas. Etc. 

For those not enamored with positions P 1 thru 100, pressure p!ates and the like,  look up some instruction from guys like John Jacobs. John who ??

He is an old English golf teacher (since passed ) who said "the golf swing is nothing more than two swings and a swish" and "your ball flight tells you everything." A great teacher\instructor enhances what you already do and gets you to do it better, that's all. 

 

 

[Nard_S]

2nd Craig Hanson & Dana Dahlquist on YT.

 

[Archimedes65]

1 hour ago, MountainKing said:

The good instructors all tend to teach the same stuff, they just use varying methods to get the job done.  Despite what most may think, there really is only so many ways to swing a golf club correctly. 

 

Jim Furyk, Matt Wolf, John Rahm, Tony Finau and many others would disagree with you…

 

https://www.golfshake.com/news/view/15456/10_of_the_Strangest_Golf_Swings.html

 

The might be only so many ways to impact the golf ball correctly, but there are an infinite number of ways to get there.

[Ghostwedge]

48 minutes ago, Ghostwedge said:

The golf swing and golf instruction doesn't fall into the "universal truth" dept.

Some of us like PT use the bound book method to.learn, some of us need physical hands on over and over drilled instruction. Some of us prefer Harmon,  some prefer Gankas. Etc. 

For those not enamored with positions P 1 thru 100, pressure p!ates and the like,  look up some instruction from guys like John Jacobs. John who ??

He is an old English golf teacher (since passed ) who said "the golf swing is nothing more than two swings and a swish" and "your ball flight tells you everything." A great teacher\instructor enhances what you already do and gets you to do it better, that's all. 

 

 

I misquoted John Jacobs it's "two turns and a swish."

Let's add the recent influx of golf instruction geared towards beginners and senior golfers. For those with limited flexibility and mobility, we're all going to be there someday if we play well into our later years. I'd check out Lawrie Montague and Julian Mellor among others. 

 

 

[betarhoalphadelta]

4 hours ago, badpokerbadgolf said:

 

Or is the whole thing subjective and there is no universal truth to what makes a good golf swing?

 

 

No, but a little bit of yes. 

 

There are two different things to talk about here:

 

• What makes a "good golf swing"? This is, I'll say, mostly objective. Which is to say that based on human physiology and the mechanics of trying to propel a little ball with a long club of certain shape and size, the world has found what we believe to be the most efficient and repeatable way to accomplish it. This would be the "147 out of 150 pro golfers do X" idea Monte brings up. There are certain movements, that done within certain ranges, simply work. With 3D motion capture, we can not only know what these movements are but quantify them. The subjective part is explaining how those other 3 out of 150 can do something radically different and it still works. Sometimes outliers exist, whether they have a physical difference of ability, or merely learned something "wrong" but are so insanely talented they can compensate for it, etc.
• How do you learn to make a "good golf swing"? This is where the subjectivity comes in. This is where #feelaintreal comes in. Because different people will have different ways to get their brain to make their body do the good golf swing. One person's feel might be exactly opposite to another person's feel to make the exact same move. IMHO this is where a lot of instructor debates happen--one instructor has really good luck with students teaching a certain feel, while another instructor has really good luck with students teaching a different feel. They both think they're right because it works, and the other is wrong because they're teaching something different, even if it also works. 

 

And then there's a third issue... To get better at golf you don't need to know who is the best doctor (instructor), and take their medicine (swing fix / feel). You need to be diagnosed so you know what disease (swing fault) your golf swing has, to know which medicine to take. And even then, you need to know which medicines (feels) you're allergic to, because as I said above, what medicine works for one golfer might cripple another's swing. 

 

All that said, that's why I don't really spend a lot of time with YouTube golf. I really like AMG's stuff because it helps me to understand, intellectually, what a "good golf swing" is. I'm an engineer so understanding things at that level is something I'm drawn to. 

 

But I don't use that YouTube instruction to improve. That's what a good instructor who will look at MY swing and diagnose MY individual swing fault and prescribe the right drills/feels for ME to get better is for. I'm not good at self-diagnosis, and even if I was, I wouldn't know which YouTube instructor had the right solution for me. 

Edited July 17 by betarhoalphadelta

[gato_plomo]

I like Mike malaska

[NoTalentLefty]

My favorites Ernest Jones, Manuel de la Torre, Erika Larkin. Not a position player, can’t relate. But I do glean from others like Monte. 

[cheeser]

Tom Saguto is quite simple but effective.  I also like Eric Cogorno.

[93tilInfinity]

Anyone have anything critical to say about Porzak? I really like his content and own his video series so curious if there’s anything I should be aware of. He’s one of 4 I follow (Monte, Paddy, AMG being the others)

Edited July 17 by 93tilInfinity

[Scottbox]

I think Porzak and his guy Pitt Golf are pretty good (though Porzak has the personality of a 1980s used car salesman). James Ridyard is great for short game. Monte is awesome. I happen to like some of the things Milo Lines teaches, though it's not for everyone. Andy Carter is worth a watch, def. 

[Valtiel]

3 hours ago, Archimedes65 said:

 

Jim Furyk, Matt Wolf, John Rahm, Tony Finau and many others would disagree with you…

 

https://www.golfshake.com/news/view/15456/10_of_the_Strangest_Golf_Swings.html

 

The might be only so many ways to impact the golf ball correctly, but there are an infinite number of ways to get there.

The rub is that there are far more core similarities when you peel away all the superficial elements. It’s interesting that you picked those four, because Rahm and Finau have a ton of similarities, as do Furyk and Wolff, the latter of which has been described as a “turbo Furyk” when he first appeared on tour. 
 

I know it verges on the semantic, but the “infinite number of ways to get there” is a little bit of a red herring, because there far more wrong ways to “get there” than right. If you were to account for all the fundamentals of the golf swing and map them out in a big point cloud, you’d find all high level golfers in the same basic sort of “solar system” no matter how visually/superficially different they appeared. You might have a handful of outliers, but the point remains that Wolff and Rahm have way more common points where it matters and would be grouped in that same solar system whereas the average weekend hacker would be far away in a similarly clustered but totally separate solar system. 

Edited July 17 by Valtiel

[Archimedes65]

55 minutes ago, Valtiel said:

The rub is that there are far more core similarities when you peel away all the superficial elements. It’s interesting that you picked those four, because Rahm and Finau have a ton of similarities, as do Furyk and Wolff, the latter of which has been described as a “turbo Furyk” when he first appeared on tour. 
 

I know it verges on the semantic, but the “infinite number of ways to get there” is a little bit of a red herring, because there far more wrong ways to “get there” than right. If you were to account for all the fundamentals of the golf swing and map them out in a big point cloud, you’d find all high level golfers in the same basic sort of “solar system” no matter how visually/superficially different they appeared.

 

Sorry, but you’re ignoring what’s staring you in the face.  Their swings are massively different, sans for some basic stuff and how they arrive at impact.  If by similar you mean they all use their hands, turn their bodies, and swing the golf club, then, yeah, they’re very similar.  If you’re talking about the detailed mechanics and positions of the golf swing that most instructors teach, they’re massively different.  As are thousands and thousands of other very good golfers.

 

I sometimes play with a member at our course who is a 1 handicap, 68 years old, former D1 golfer many years ago.  His swing resembles nothing any PGA teaching pro would ever teach as a good golf swing. In fact, if I posted a video of his swing on here for dissection, most comments would be ‘he’ll never be a good golfer with that swing’. But man can he strike a golf ball.  Because he is able to arrive at a good impact position on a consistent basis, even with his odd swing.

 

I’m going to start referring to my low handicap buddies with weird swings as ‘bees’.  You know, because they really shouldn’t be able to fly…but somehow they do.

 

Edited July 18 by Archimedes65

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Archimedes65 said:

Sorry, but you’re ignoring what’s staring you in the face.  Their swings are massively different, sans for some basic stuff and how they arrive at impact.

 

Really?

 

 

They both have a "good" impact (duh), but their impact conditions are not all that similar (their body measurements, etc.).

 

1 hour ago, Archimedes65 said:

In fact, if I posted a video of his swing on here for dissection, most comments would be ‘he’ll never be a good golfer with that swing’.

 

That's anything but a fact.

 

1 hour ago, Archimedes65 said:

Because he is able to arrive at a good impact position on a consistent basis, even with his odd swing.

 

That's why it's anything but a fact. You don't think people can see how he is moving from six inches before and after impact?

[MountainKing]

16 hours ago, Archimedes65 said:

 

Jim Furyk, Matt Wolf, John Rahm, Tony Finau and many others would disagree with you…

 

https://www.golfshake.com/news/view/15456/10_of_the_Strangest_Golf_Swings.html

 

The might be only so many ways to impact the golf ball correctly, but there are an infinite number of ways to get there.

 

There's exceptions to every rule, and there's a reason the tour (any of them,  not just PGA) isn't loaded with guys swinging  like these four.

 

With that said,  even these four have more in common with what would be considered a good swing,  than not.

 

Now considering this post is about good instructors,  and these guys have swings no good instructor would teach,  not sure what you're trying to get at/

Edited July 18 by MountainKing

[Soloman1]

the most universal thing may be that there sure is a lot of stuff on the internet.

[Jtgavigan]

8 hours ago, Sp4zRX said:

 

 

My list is similar except I would drop Grant and replace with AMG. 

I would add in Mike Adams and Terry Rowles as well. Monte is amazing. Bought powershift recently and is really good. Porzak is good, Cogorno is good, and I like some of Mike Malaska's stuff. I watch Milo Lines and admire what he does, but not sure that is for everyone. 

[Valtiel]

19 hours ago, Archimedes65 said:

 

Sorry, but you’re ignoring what’s staring you in the face.  

 

I'd argue that you're misinterpreting what's staring *you* in the face by getting trapped in the superficial. All the swings are far more similar than they are different *where it counts* and I don't just mean impact. I'll try to explain because I know exactly where you're coming from and I don't want to say you're wrong, I want to show how I think that is an incomplete way of looking at it in a "forest for the trees" kind of way while recognizing how what i'm saying can be subject to the same *if* i'm not careful. It's very much a "everything is made of protons/electrons/neutrons" kind of thing which does risk getting too academic, but bear with me. 

When it comes to basics, there isn't a question. All minutia aside, this is the important bit IMO. All these golfers have the same core fundamentals of pressure shifting sequence, connection between hands/arms/shoulders in takeaway, correct pelvic rotation/pivot, maintaining of spine tilt in the backswing, and shaft plane angle in the downswing. There a handful of these fundamentals that *can* vary quite a lot in the pros; Furyk has very different wrist conditions than say Adam Scott, and how and to what degree they produce these things also varies; Jordan Spieth has way more hip turn than say McIlroy, but underneath the superficial difference in *amount* lies the same fundamentals. Points in a point cloud that are in the same general neighborhood. 

Most ams aren't anywhere near that neighborhood and there are 10x as many differences between a weekend hacker swing and Adam Scott than there is between Adam Scott and Jim Furyk when you know what you're looking for. It isn't amount of degrees within a fundamental like the pros, it's just flat out moving "wrong". In that way the golf swing is almost like those old magic eye posters that you literally had to learn to look at differently to see. Until you do, you're missing the underlying picture. It's equal parts fascinating and frustrating and it is the underlying "computer code" of what makes the pros the pros. 

So I guess if I tried to summarize my disagreement in a way that builds off what you said, no there are not an infinite number of ways to have a fundamentally good golf swing, there are a ton of ways to reach the dozen or so exits that lead to the downtown of "good swing". Most ams don't know where the exits are, and a scant few take them by accident but often turn the wrong way. And abandoning the focus on the motion of your swing, clearing out the technical stuff, and going on just "instinct" is only advisable if someone already has strong enough underlying fundamentals. If they don't then you're just trading one poison for another, because people get all messed up going into the technical weeds because they either don't know how or don't have a guide. That isn't the tech's fault, it's just a really really hard. 

Edited July 18 by Valtiel

[Nels55]

14 hours ago, Archimedes65 said:

I’m going to start referring to my low handicap buddies with weird swings as ‘bees’.  You know, because they really shouldn’t be able to fly…but somehow they do.

The mechanics of the flight of a bumblebee are well understood and have been for many many years.  The myth persists though...