Article, Lessons From the Worst Golf Instructor in America

[snapfade]

Not exactly what I thought the article would be about but a little interesting. I immediately thought of @collegefbfan post.  I would like to believe that most instructors have a genuine passion to help their students get better, but I'm sure somewhere there's a guy that gives you just enough to make you have to come back. @iacas can answer this.  Other than being a PGA professional, is any governing body on certifications for an instructor?  I know of the USGTF but is that 100% legitimate? 

Ryan: Lessons from the worst golf instructor in America

---

In Tampa, there is a golf course that boasts carts that do not work, a water range, and a group of players none of which have any chance to break 80...

 

[saevel25]

Just critiquing the article. 

Quote

Now, let me tell you something, there is this law of the universe which says “energy can either be created or destroyed,” so either these guys are defying physics or they have no idea what they are taking about. Further, the idea that the first move of the backswing determines impact is conjecture with a splash of utter fantasy.

He is misquoting energy being created or destroyed. The energy conservation is more around systems, and accounting for energy in the system. This is why thermodynamic equations end with some sort of variable, usually entropy. Heat loss is a common energy loss that must be accounted for to balance the thermodynamic equation. Let's say you have a car engine, if you write out the thermodynamic equation, at the end you need to account for the heat generated as a loss. We haven't found a way to redirect heat effectively as energy into a mechanical system for use. 

I would say certain movements in the golf swing do either promote more power or less power. Power being swing speed. All that energy is known, it isn't like any system is claiming they are breaking the laws of thermodynamics. 

I get the guy wants to sound professional here, I get his gripe, but don't misuse physics please. 😛

Quote

These are the pontifications of a method — a set of prescriptions applied to everyone with the hope of some success through the placebo effect. It is one thing for a naive student to believe, for a golf instructor to drink and then dispel this Kool-Aid is malpractice.

Not sure I believe that. If you practice the movements, specifically enough, you will make a swing change. If it is good or not depends. I do not think a golfer can become so ascribed to a system, and believe it makes them better, then it does make them better. There might be some confidence level here, so maybe some measurable result could be found. It could be gaslighting as well. Unless you track the scores out, a person might believe they are better when they are not. 

Quote

Now here’s the sinister thing: The overwhelming information is by design. In this case, the coach is not trying to make you better, they are trying to make you reliant on them for information. A quasi Stockholm syndrome of codependency.

Maybe for some, but I do not believe all of these instructors are after this. I think the golf instructor might just be bad at realizing how long it takes to make a swing change, and a good result might not actually be due to their instruction, but just variance. So, it might just be a bad assumption on the instructor's part. I do not think it is all, "Oh, if I can just make every good shot sound like it is me improving them, I got them roped in for x amount more lessons."

There could be more "snake oil" salesman out there than I think. I think a lot of special programs are designed as to get to know the instructor. An instructor's business is to get clients. I do not see these sorts of promotions, camps, or what not as a scam. What if an instructor is like, buy one get one free lesson. Or, buy one adult lesson and a kid gets a free lesson. It could be a way to get a kid into the game if they are interested. This could be done by any type of instructor; method, system, or whatever. 

From my experience, at least at the places I have been to or instructors I have happen to oversee teach. Most of them do use cliche's, or drills to fix a common problem. They may not be hitting on the exact issue, but it is what they know. I wouldn't categorize it as a method, or as the writer gave an example, Stack and Tilt. 

[snapfade]

Seems like the guy belongs to a track over in Tampa that has not aged very well. Probably has some Orlimar Tri-metals in the pro shop for sale. Kind of make me want to take a road trip. 

[boogielicious]

26 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

He is misquoting energy being created or destroyed.

Plus the quote should be ‘Matter cannot be created or destroyed’. - Antoine Lavoisier, father of modern chemistry. Side note: he was guillotined in the French Revolution.

These guys remind me of Bryson DeChamblow. They use buzz words that most with think make them sound smart. Sad part is people who actually know see right through them.

[billchao]

As I read the article, I thought, "This article is garbage. It's poorly written and says nothing. It's as bad as he's claiming the instructor he's criticizing to be." Then I realized it's the same guy that wrote this gem:

Lo and behold, it's basically the same thing I said about the last one. This guy just doesn't like golf instruction and he doesn't know shit about swing theory. And possibly physics, even though his bio says he's a scientist.

Quote

The Stack and Tilt website proudly boasts, “A golfer swings his hands inward in the backswing as opposed to straight back to 1) create power, similar to a field goal kicker moving his leg in an arc and 2) to promote a swing that is in-to-out, which produces a draw (and eliminates a slice).”

Now, let me tell you something, there is this law of the universe which says “energy can either be created or destroyed,” so either these guys are defying physics or they have no idea what they are taking about. Further, the idea that the first move of the backswing determines impact is conjecture with a splash of utter fantasy.

He's completely misunderstanding what the purpose of a tilted arc is. It takes advantage of the anatomy of the human body and it's ability to generate power through rotation. Part of how it "creates" power too is by lengthening the swing arc, which allows more time to transfer energy and speed from your body to the club and ultimately, to the ball. There's a reason long drive guys don't have short swings. There is a reason the one inch punch is so hard to execute and more people get KO'd by a hook than a jab.

The entire article, just like the last one I read, reads like the rantings of a guy that just doesn't like golf instruction who's probably never had a good lesson in his life.

[iacas]

4 hours ago, snapfade said:

I'm sure somewhere there's a guy that gives you just enough to make you have to come back.

There are plenty of those guys. A guy nearby often has students see him every week or two. The students "get better" during the lesson because the guy says a bunch of things, and they've been hitting a 7I for the past 45 minutes, so they've kinda gotten in a groove.

I often tell my students to go away and not come back for six weeks, because that's how long it'll be until they start to see some real progress. (I teach plenty of people every two to three weeks, but they all know they're not going to get something all that new, and that we're kind of in "bumper bowling" mode at that point where I'm just trying to keep them on the lane we've chosen to go down.)

4 hours ago, snapfade said:

Other than being a PGA professional, is any governing body on certifications for an instructor?  I know of the USGTF but is that 100% legitimate?

The USGTF is a money-making operation. If you're willing to pay them, they'll keep making you a "higher level" instructor. I've known people who can't break 90 who go through it and are "level 3" or something… because they gave them $8k and took two weeks of "training."

The PGA… doesn't really teach you a ton about teaching, either. And what they do teach you… let's just say it's not always the best. There are plenty of really, really great instructors… who aren't PGA members. And many bad ones who are.

It'd be impossible to actually teach all that you need to know about golf to be a great golf instructor, so that's not as much of a knock on the PGA as you might think it is. Nobody's going to spend six years in the PGA paying $30k/year to ONLY learn about golf instruction. That's what I estimate it would cost to distill and impart and practice the actual "here's how to be a good golf instructor" stuff.

2 hours ago, saevel25 said:

He is misquoting energy being created or destroyed.

Oh boy.

5 minutes ago, billchao said:

Then I realized it's the same guy that wrote this gem:

I know Brendan a bit. Used to text him. These articles are cringe, and I'd say that to him, too. They feel like clickbait.

5 minutes ago, billchao said:

The entire article, just like the last one I read, reads like the rantings of a guy that just doesn't like golf instruction who's probably never had a good lesson in his life.

Yeah…

BTW, I may have mentioned this before, but he's a college placement guy. He helps kids find college programs to play golf. He also argued strongly against Natalie going where she is quite happy to be right now. 😉 

[billchao]

16 minutes ago, iacas said:

I know Brendan a bit. Used to text him. These articles are cringe, and I'd say that to him, too. They feel like clickbait.

Yea and that's a problem, because there are terrible golf instructors out there, but this article does nothing to address that. If anything, it's so bad, I'm inclined to believe the instructor in question isn't really terrible at all.

[saevel25]

21 minutes ago, billchao said:

Yea and that's a problem, because there are terrible golf instructors out there, but this article does nothing to address that. If anything, it's so bad, I'm inclined to believe the instructor in question isn't really terrible at all.

Yea, it is basically a rant with little to no substance. It should have been one of those emails you write to be cathartic, but just never send it. 😉 Except it published it.

[GolfLug]

27 minutes ago, billchao said:

Yea and that's a problem, because there are terrible golf instructors out there, but this article does nothing to address that. If anything, it's so bad, I'm inclined to believe the instructor in question isn't really terrible at all.

 

4 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Yea, it is basically a rant with little to no substance. It should have been one of those emails you write to be cathartic, but just never send it. 😉 Except it published it.

Is it possible that he writer is full of shit himself? "After months of listening and watching...". Yeah right, cuz that's so normal for writers do that just to get a single article out of the massive endeavor. I mean unless you are angling for a Rant-Pulitzer (Yup, it is a thing.. like, totally). 

[Vinsk]

1 hour ago, billchao said:

The entire article, just like the last one I read, reads like the rantings of a guy that just doesn't like golf instruction who's probably never had a good lesson in his life

If you can’t, attack it. That’s the new age ideology. 

[iacas]

More actual thoughts on the articles:

Quote

Method teaching allows anyone to be certified. This process caters to the lowest caliber instructor, creating the illusion of competency. This empowers these underqualified instructors with the moniker of “certified” to prey on the innocent and uninformed.

Oh boy.

I taught 5SK, and before that, I was S&T certified. Those experiences, for many good instructors, are additive. They're not "all" that they are. If I were to go through Scott Cowx's certification, or Dr. Kwon's, or James Ridyard's, or whomever's… I wouldn't be a "method" teacher any more than I am now. I'd be adding tools to the toolbox.

He says there are "system" teachers, "non-system" teachers, and method teachers. Which one am I? A "non-system teacher"? So, I don't have any systems or structure? Or am I a "system" teacher with a bunch of branches and if/then/else statements? I don't know.

The physics thing as it relates to S&T… yeah, that's already been discussed. Huh? Brendan, sorry, that part is bogus AF. Of course the arms go "around" somewhat. It's back, up, and in. Down, out, and forward. Plus, again, "energy can either be created or destroyed" isn't even right, as many of you have said. It's "neither" and it can be transformed, too. Plus, as others noted, that's typically a closed system: in our bodies we transform sugars and other things to create movement, energy. I'm going to move off this before I get totally annoyed…

"These are the pontifications of a method" — no, the specific example he cited is the way everyone who has ever played good golf moves their hands - back, up, and in. The clubhead moves that way, too.

Quote

The problem is that when bad instructors work with high handicappers, each and every shot gets its own diagnosis and prescription. Soon the student is overwhelmed.

I've seen this happen. This part might be the most accurate part of the article (it's no longer clear whether he's talking about this fellow or just talking in general here.)

"Now here’s the sinister thing: The overwhelming information is by design." — If the instructor is as incompetent as he says, he's likely not doing any of this "by design." He doesn't sound bright enough to do so.

Quote

One of the most important scientists of the 20th century was Ivan Pavlov. As you might recall, he found that animals, including humans, could be conditioned into biological responses. In golf, the idea of practice has made millions of hackers salivate that they are one lesson or practice session from “the secret.”

WTF does that have to do with anything?

Quote

The idea for the worst golf instructor is to create control and dependency so that clients ignore the sunk cost of not getting better. Instead, they are held hostage by the idea that they are one lesson or tip away from unlocking their potential.

Probably happens to some extent sometimes, but is that the instructor's fault? Or the student for not recognizing it? Also, again, this instructor doesn't seem to be bright (not that this article even really talks about the instructor anymore), so… I doubt he's doing all of this intentionally. People are found out eventually.

I'm at a point where I get a lot of referrals from people who have noticed their friends playing better golf, and ask. Or people want to brag about their improvements, and that sells their friends.

"As a result, these players couldn’t play golf." — Huh?

16 minutes ago, GolfLug said:

Is it possible that he writer is full of shit himself? "After months of listening and watching...". Yeah right, cuz that's so normal for writers do that just to get a single article out of the massive endeavor. I mean unless you are angling for a Rant-Pulitzer (Yup, it is a thing.. like, totally). 

I think he just observed when he was there. Not that he went out of his way to watch. 😄 

[GolfLug]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

I think he just observed when he was there. Not that he went out of his way to watch. 😄 

Fair enough but I still think this writer is being a total dick pivoting his BS theory off this unsuspecting instructor, who for all we know might be the only chance those hacks will ever have of hitting a ball straight.

Edited April 30 by GolfLug

[collegefbfan]

Thanks for including me on this article.  I really appreciate it.  I will try to explain what my objectives are and what I have done in the past with other instructors.  I have been to five instructors in 4 years.  Some of that time included a year layoff.  I told each one that my main goal was to make good contact and hit the ball straight, I didn't care about crazy long distance.  I know other things matter when hitting different clubs, where the ball is placed in the stance, rough or sand, etc.  1st instructor (about an hour away) was PGA certified, and he was more worried about me watching him hit his 6 iron straight than teaching me anything.  For the little time he watched me hit, he watched me hit ground ball after ground ball with no advice or suggestions.  2nd instructor (1.5 hours away) was better, but it was more about club lag/lean without really telling me how to do it.  3rd instructor (about 40 minutes away) was PGA certified and said he taught a relaxed swing.  I never really got what that meant.  4th instructor (1.75 hours away) was at a very nice country club and PGA certified with all the stuff a student would want.  Never looked at grip.  Also told me that the "wrists take care of themselves in the swing".  Really?  Have you seen all the questions about wrist hinge and timing?  Tells me to get weight on my lead foot/leg but no drills or thought processes on how to accomplish it.  Most current instructor (50 minutes away) looked at everything.  Checks grip, has a way to have my weight on my lead foot/leg, etc.  I said hey when do I come back.  He says after you have become comfortable with these "short" shots and making consistent contact, we will discuss a good time for another lesson.  I know being PGA certified matters to a lot of folks.  I sort of relate it to this:  I have had my vehicles worked on by my step grandfather, my father in law, my brother in law, even myself.  None of us are ASE certified, but it got fixed without tons of wrong guesses as to what it could be.  I am just a 50 year old guy that should have taken the game up 20-25 years ago.  I have always liked the sport a lot.  Just wanna be a guy that can hit the ball consistently and not hook, slice, and shank every other swing.  Many thanks you all. 

[Phil McGleno]

@collegefbfan-That is a lot of text in a row.

Paragraphs please.-Tough for my old eyes to read.

The article is mebbe worse than the other one-This guy does not even 'write good'.

It is not worth the time to read or discuss-Really. There are bad instructors-He is a worse writer than many bad instructors are bad instructors.

[snapfade]

I thoroughly enjoyed Erik ripping the article apart. Well done sir.