Chuck Q Lesson

[billchao]

Just to throw in two more cents into the discussion, the lower body piece the player in the video is working on is similar to what I worked on with @iacas in Erie. We also tried a few different feels to see how my body would react, but I knew the whole time what he wanted me to do and why we were doing it.

That, combined with being given drills and knowing how to practice properly are very important in a lesson, because that stuff I can take away and use in my own practice. That’s very important in a lesson because you won’t be practicing under the supervision of an instructor at all times. Feels change. A good lesson gives you the tools you need for self discovery so you can continue working on the piece on your own.

[saevel25]

I gave him a 3. It seemed very middle of the road. I think he knows what to look for, but lacks how to teach it in a good way. I’ve spend entire lessons trying to figure out a feel that works for the piece I need to work on. When I listen to some golf pros teach at a local range, I definitely see what a 1 or a 2 Is on the teaching scale. 

[Slim_Pivot]

I’m a little surprised he posted this lesson to YouTube.

• Student made fun of him for shanks
• student had been with his program for a long time
• student said he got conflicting advice from teacher in the program

Chuck’s marketing strengths seem to be simple messages on YouTube. “If you do our program, you will be a good player.” 

Im just surprised he posted this lesson. It seems off brand to me. One could interpret it as:

“if you pay a bunch of money and stick to our program, you might need a comprehensive lesson from the guy in charge”

If I’m in charge of branding, I don’t post this-even if I was very proud of the lesson

[nevets88]

It's just a lot of information to take at once, would guess having the video would make it easier to go back and reassess. That's an hour of video to go through though. One instructor I work with, at the end of the lesson, I video him giving me like a one or two minute overview where he mimics the motions and all that. I think that is very useful, instead of scrubbing through an hour of video. On the other hand, some lessons I've gotten I wish I had the whole thing available to me.

It's good that lessons are openly available so freely so you can assess a pro before you put your money down.

I prefer just the one or two things in one session. That's all I can handle. If you give more, put those 3 or 4 things in a video, concisely and simply I guess.

 

[Phil McGleno]

So I have a bunch of thoughts-And I am going to take time to write them out.

I voted a 3.-But I wanted to vote 2.5.

If the scales are every 20% then this is nowhere near the bottom 20% of lessons, and is better than the bottom 40% of lessons. It is not in the top 20 or 40, so that puts it in the middle.-I guess since there is no 0 3 is right. So let me be clear about that-I do not think this was in any way a bad lesson.

I liked that Chuck was personable.-THe guy liked him and he liked the guy. They had a good rapport and got along well.-They had a few laughs and the student seemed to enjoy the time.

That is that though-So while I do not think it was a bad lesson I do not think it was a good lesson. Quickly-If I can do this right:

• What does this guy take away from the lesson? Both physically-video pictures notes-and otherwise-What is his biggest thing to work on and how does he work on it? Very little seemingly done here.
• The guy worked on four or 5 things right? My goodness what is the focus?
• The guy got different instruction-the opposite-from another instructor in Rotary Swing?
• Very little use of anything but what Chuck says he saw.
• Disagree with several of the mechanics parts. Left knee not moving back, not moving forward, closed/square at impact, resisting the turn with the hips-More.
• What was the student there for? Ball flight? Speed? Did Chuck ever ask?
• So closed at impact. Right foot flat? And yet do not slide the hips forward?-Come on-That is going to make the hips go forward most.

That is off the top of my head.-Others in this topic already got some other things.

[mvmac]

Gave it a 3. I think Chuck shared some ok info but wasn't applied correctly. No real priority piece, not really sure what the guy's homework was. 

I feel he was trying to get him to do things that he physically can't do because of how tucked under his pelvis is at address. Working on the downswing pieces was good for general understanding but a waste of time because from where he is at setup and on the downswing he's got no chance to open and push. Best part IMO was the end where he got him to start shifting into his right side, something he actually needs to do to get the club to load better and so he has a chance to get into his left side.

 

[BeCu]

I gave the score of a 3 because I thought too many things were attempted to be covered for a single lesson. The breakdown I would have liked to see would be for this initial lesson a focus on the address position/take away (1st part of back swing) and from take away the transition to the top (part 2).

Absolutely no need to discuss the transition / down swing if the setup / back swing is not correct. Maybe the guy is good enough to handle a lot of information I don't know but its a lot to process imo. I can only imagine what this guy may be thinking and trying to feel......

Personally I would have had multiple lessons and asked for a more sequencing style (each part builds to another part -- get the parts correct in order (sequence) approach. 

I know everyone is different as is teaching style/methodologies. Maybe this is what some call a band aid fix lesson. Not my style but I did enjoy reviewing the video. 

[boogielicious]

Changed my vote to a three. Skimmed through the lesson again and I agree that I would have wanted a lot more from him.

[Bo the Golfer]

I voted 2. I think like others have said I would want more why from Chuck. I've only taken a couple of lessons but for sure would want to have more focus based on what the instructor asked me what I was looking to work on.