Hypothetical - If you always had live instructor supervision when you practiced...

[nevets88]

Obviously you'd get better faster. But just to what degree if you were to guess? Say compared to sending video back and forth a couple of times a month.

[Abu3baid]

I think it would be exponential, and this is because they could give you advice right after a shot and they can try mutiple feels with you in 10 minutes..

[billchao]

Just ask @Ernest Jones

[Stretch]

Would suck less. Definitely.

[Ernest Jones]

Just ask @Ernest Jones

Makes a HUGE difference. If I could have live instruction for every session I'd be low single digits without question. Actually, **** that, I'd be on the Tour.

[nevets88]

This is anecdotal, but I notice, generally, instructors, not only here, with kids who play, they're really good.

[JetFan1983]

Yes, it would be exponential growth or decline depending on the ability of the instructor.

Compared to online instruction, for me, it would again be exponential growth. But I'm not sure that's universally true.

But think about this for a second. And let's assume that your instructor is good. Online you can hit one shot per camera angle. One shot. Then you send it in and wait. Then after a few days or so, you get your feedback, and head to the range. You take one swing. Maybe you did what they want, maybe you didn't. You try again. You check on your camera. Uh oh, you're not skilled enough really to make these kinds of changes on your own. Hmmm, you hit another ball. Bad result. Hmmm. I should've had my camera going for that one. You hit another shot with the camera going. Bad result. You look at it. You don't see anything new. You're a bit confused.

Now jump over to in person instruction with the same guy who was your evolvr instructor:

Now you shake hands, make some jokes, have some fun. You talk about your game a bit, your goals maybe. It's light, it's fun. You feel the pressure is kind off you now. You get to it.

You hit some balls. He films you. You hit your dreaded miss on camera. You say, "that! OK, I'm having trouble with that."

Guess what, you guys?! You get your answer immediately. And for several hours straight if you paid for a clinic.

The back and forth you get during a clinic is likely for me several hundred times more effective a teaching tool than online instruction; however, that being said, online instruction is such a powerful tool in of itself that it can in many ways be just as effective, depending on the player. The simplicity of learning through a 3-6 minute video cannot be understated for many types of golfers out there. Furthermore, if you're supplementing in-person instruction with online follow-ups, this effectiveness can IMO reach a more effective level, even for me, who originally didn't learn so great through only online.

So it's debatable, I think, when viewed in this light. While I'll always be of the camp that would improve faster in person than through any other medium, I acknowledge that not everyone learns the same, and in many cases, getting the information thru evolvr is all a student needs to get to the next level.

So, like a lot of things in golf, I think the correct answer to your question is "it depends," but based on my own experience, I'm leaning towards in-person instruction as being the far more effective method. And for me, like I said, this couldn't be more true.

[nevets88]

Yeah, you have your online lessons - not as good as live, but better than nothing. You can only send in only so many swings/time period.

You have your live lesson, 2 hours, perhaps half a day, the whole day.

Then you have always on live instruction - I'm thinking this is a whole different animal sometimes.

[billchao]

The other thing a live instructor can do is physically manipulate your body and put you in positions you can feel, etc. You can't get that from a video.

[JetFan1983]

Haha, can I just be super nit-picky here and add this to my hypothetical evolvr situation in my first post in this thread?

But think about this for a second. And let's assume that your instructor is good. Online you can hit one shot per camera angle. One shot. Then you send it in and wait. Then after a few days or so, you get your feedback, and head to the range. You take one swing. Maybe you did what they want, maybe you didn't. You try again. You check on your camera. Uh oh, you're not skilled enough really to make these kinds of changes on your own. Hmmm, you hit another ball. Bad result. Hmmm. I should've had my camera going for that one. You hit another shot with the camera going. Bad result. You look at it. You don't see anything new. You're a bit confused.

OK, obviously this student in this example should have been hitting quarter and half shots at a slower tempo to hit the new piece the instructor wants. But maybe that student forgot that day to do that? In person, the teacher won't miss little things like this that can go accidentally ignored.

Again, I think both are great. Online and in-person instruction have different strengths.

But in the end, I think that the golf swing can be so dynamic that one priority piece can really mean two or three pieces working together in sequence. If someone has a hurdle like this to overcome, in-person is totally the best way to go. However, if you're someone who can improve with just one dynamic change or two, then online is going to be super, super effective.

But like I said, everyone is different. Can't stress that enough.

[jamo]

They would tell me to check my camera more, and make changes/adjust feels/focus on something more during the range session rather than waiting until afterwards.

[JetFan1983]

They would tell me to check my camera more, and make changes/adjust feels/focus on something more during the range session rather than waiting until afterwards.

True true, and as a fellow evolvr student myself, I would stress that they do a great job of covering the bases that need to be covered. Of course though, you and I have both had in-person and online instruction with them, so we're on a separate plane than those who have only had the online version.

James doesn't really have to explain anything to me in the video because he did that already when we met for a clinic. It's just a series of reminders really.

[Abu3baid]

I feel like I'm missing out on so much! Action item for next time I am back in the states: visit Dave & Erik

[PirateJim]

I think it would very much depend upon the instructor and the individual student.  Information overload is a very real thing.

There is also a HUGE 'possibility gap' between sending in videos a couple of times a month and constant supervision by a live instructor.  For example; weekly one hour lessons with a decent teaching pro.  For me, I believe optimum might be a 15 minute session each day at the start of my practice to evaluate how I'm doing and assign maybe one thing to work on that day.  I'm pretty sure if I had someone critiquing each shot I'd advance more slowly than by getting regular instruction and plenty of time to practice what I've been told.  None of us are Iron Byron that can just have our programming tweaked between shots.

[billchao]

I think it would very much depend upon the instructor and the individual student.  Information overload is a very real thing.  There is also a HUGE 'possibility gap' between sending in videos a couple of times a month and constant supervision by a live instructor.  For example; weekly one hour lessons with a decent teaching pro.  For me, I believe optimum might be a 15 minute session each day at the start of my practice to evaluate how I'm doing and assign maybe one thing to work on that day.  I'm pretty sure if I had someone critiquing each shot I'd advance more slowly than by getting regular instruction and plenty of time to practice what I've been told.  None of us are Iron Byron that can just have our programming tweaked between shots.

Jim, my experiences with live instruction have never been critiquing every shot. Usually an instructor will show me something, or a drill, and have me work on that particular thing. He or she watches to see that you are doing it correctly. It's not like they are having you work on different things from swing to swing. A live instructor can give you feedback right away if you are doing something correctly or not. Online, all you can do is get their feedback, work on it on your own, and submit another video at a later time. If you're not doing something the right way, you may not know it for some time. Given the instruction is from the same person, an instructor will always be able to do more for you in person than simply through online videos.

[jamo]

True true, and as a fellow evolvr student myself, I would stress that they do a great job of covering the bases that need to be covered. Of course though, you and I have both had in-person and online instruction with them, so we're on a separate plane than those who have only had the online version.  James doesn't really have to explain anything to me in the video because he did that already when we met for a clinic. It's just a series of reminders really.

I would agree. I have a tendency to just hit a bunch of balls, film 20 of them, and then try to figure out what I was doing wrong when I go home. That can mean that I spend the entire time doing something wrong, or regressing on something, and by the time I go to the range again I might not remember (or at least I might not be super focused on) the thing that was regressing. It's a vicious cycle of stupidity.

[iacas]

A few comments…

• Yes, obviously having an instructor "live" is better for your improvement.
• A poor "live" instructor could easily be beaten by a good "Internet" instructor.
• The gap between even the same instructor "live" versus "Internet" isn't always huge .
• That gap depends on the student's abilities, too, to listen and understand, as well as the instructor's capabilities.
• Internet is often less expensive, so for $250, oftentimes that's two "live" lessons versus over six months on evolvr (and thus up to 24 lessons, but more commonly about 10-15).

In other words, don't sell short Internet-based lessons. They're easier to fit into your schedule, cost less, and if done well are still a great help to a golfer's game.

[Lihu]

This is anecdotal, but I notice, generally, instructors, not only here, with kids who play, they're really good. :-D

This is the principle behind First Tee. The kids who stay longer in the program get good.