I find his lack of Key #1... disturbing.  

Marv, huh?

The above is not what you want, these images.

1 hour ago, TallSouthern said:

Not to threadjack (my favorite cheese) but is the difference between sweeping and picking the weight shift?  Nicklaus said he played every shot off his left instep and had a vertical swing.  This works well off mats and low grass, but when you hit off a good bit of grass especially with a fairway wood shouldn't you play the ball back and hit more level? I feel like hitting off of mats and crappy golf course semihardpan ruins the release.

The longer the club, the more forward it's usually played in the stance.

You seem to have a good number of questions… Post some of them in this forum: https://thesandtrap.com/forums/forum/12-instruction-and-playing-tips/.

17 minutes ago, Patch said:

There may not be that big of change in golf instruction from the dinosaurs' perspective. The real dinosours did die off completely. Today's golf dinosours are being replaced with younger dinosours' teachings.

I disagree.

There's a limit to how much we can know. To how finite information is while still being "helpful." We have the science to measure just about everything we could want to measure right now. We've reached a saturation point, basically.

The older dinosaurs didn't know a lot of what they were talking about. They thought weight transferred back in the backswing, or that the path primarily influenced the start direction, or other types of things we now know to be false to a rather detailed level.

33 minutes ago, Patch said:

There may not be that big of change in golf instruction from the dinosaurs' perspective. The real dinosours did die off completely. Today's golf dinosours are being replaced with younger dinosours' teachings.

I agree with @iacas. If you follow anything going on in the golf instruction world, you'd understand where this is coming from. The old instructors didn't have technology that we have today. They didn't know the answers so they guessed. They went by what they saw, felt, or what others' described they were doing. They used what tools they had available to them at the time. I don't blame them for that.

The problem is with instructors who refuse to accept new information. Even though we know how ballflight works, they still teach it the old (wrong) way. Those are the dinosaurs. As the world changes around them, they refuse to change with it. I absolutely blame them for that.

2 minutes ago, billchao said:

The problem is with instructors who refuse to accept new information. Even though we know how ballflight works, they still teach it the old (wrong) way. Those are the dinosaurs. As the world changes around them, they refuse to change with it. I absolutely blame them for that.

Right.

I know plenty of older instructors who continue to adapt and grow.

Those guys are not the dinosaurs.

1 hour ago, ncates00 said:

I guess many of these dinosaurs don't want to invest in the tech or think they won't know how to use it, but it is to their benefit as a business and it better serves their students with quantifiable data that can be trusted.

I think it's even more simple than not wanting to invest in tech. They don't understand it, they fear it and they don't want to admit they were wrong.

3 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

Some of them, yeah I'd agree.  I do think some of them, like Joe Pro, are looking at the cost of such things.  For Joe Pro, dropping tens of thousands of dollars just might not (in their head) be a profitable investment.  Golf is pretty expensive for most anyway, so putting the price of the tech into your lessons' price tag for the student might not bring in more students or return.  I think it is a complicated issue and not simple at all.  I'm sure there are some pros that fit into your format, but for many it may be much more than that.

You don't need to own a Trackman to learn from those who do. That's not why those instructors are dinosaurs.

It's about being closed to new ideas and refusing to accept that what they teach is wrong.

6 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

Some of them, yeah I'd agree.  I do think some of them, like Joe Pro, are looking at the cost of such things.  For Joe Pro, dropping tens of thousands of dollars just might not (in their head) be a profitable investment.  Golf is pretty expensive for most anyway, so putting the price of the tech into your lessons' price tag for the student might not bring in more students or return. 

I guess I was referring more to learning from tech and evolving out of dinosaur thinking. You don't need to spend thousands of dollars to convey the correct ball flight laws, correct pressure shifts, correct macro body movements, etc. You can still utilize a great deal of the knowledge without having the tools.

There are some pretty respected instructors who are putting their knowledge online for 1/100th the cost of a radar and there is tons of info. If I were aspiring to be a pro and limited funds, that would be one of my first options.

1 hour ago, ncates00 said:

I know, but if the topic is about good, sound teaching then the only way to do so is to measure.  I don't think you're getting a "real" lesson if tech isn't used.  Just watching 2D video and looking at positions isn't ideal for golf.  The golf swing is a motion.  The old guys who just look at video aren't getting the whole picture.  I think a real lesson is one where it utilizes all the technologies we have available.  Only then can you accurately measure what's going on in the motion and have reliable data to show your student.

I disagree, and I know a number of good instructors who would, too. You don't need to measure exactly how much pressure a student is exerting during x part of their swing if you've seen enough measured swings to know what a person should look like when they're doing it correctly.

I've taken lessons from @iacas. I've never been on Swing Catalyst or Gears. Hell I don't even think we've even been on Flightscope during lessons.

Good instructors use videos. Dinosaurs don't. But it's absurd to say a lesson isn't good unless the instructor uses high tech equipment. Even the good instructors who own those tools aren't using them every lesson.

1 hour ago, mvmac said:

I guess I was referring more to learning from tech and evolving out of dinosaur thinking. You don't need to spend thousands of dollars to convey the correct ball flight laws, correct pressure shifts, correct macro body movements, etc. You can still utilize a great deal of the knowledge without having the tools.

I agree and that's what I think this thread is about, too.

43 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

To convey it, sure.  But to measure it- no.  Feel and real are different most of the time.  You're guessing in my opinion.  Maybe you have video evidence for some of it, but it's hard to quantify that to a student without evidence.  Maybe your Joe Hacker, but to the discerning golfer, no.  If I'm paying you for lessons, I want every penny worth of it and I want measurable proof of what I'm working on and why.

I gotcha, I'm all for verifying.

I'm just saying that not having thousands of dollars to spend on tech isn't an excuse for saying the start line of the ball is mostly determined by the direction of the path or that you have to roll your wrists to hit a draw or that you should have your butt out and chin up for good posture.