Tommy Gainey-Bubba- and Ray Romano- Golf instruction is lousy!!!

[sean_miller]

I have some thoughts that may lower the OP's scores.

Dear OP

Don't focus on the percentages yet. Focus on the techniques, making quality contact, and eventually scoring.

1.) Don't use your driver. You think you can hit it but you really can't. Get yourself an 18-21 degree hybrid with proper shaft for your swing and use that off every driver hole. On longer holes use it from the fairway as well. Learn to hit it high, low, bend it left to right, and bend it right to left.

2.) Learn to love your 7-iron. Hit it high and low. Full shots, punches, bunker shots, knockdowns, stingers, bending it right to left and left to right. This club is your new best friend. As Dora the Explorer would say, "Don't ask why, just do it!!".

3.) Get a versatile pitching wedge and sand wedge combination. They should be different but complimentary. You need enough bounce on your SW to be confident from the sand and rough, but a dynamic sole grind allows you to open the SW up and hit some little cut lobs.

4.) Get a putter that fits your natural stroke. Nobody cares who designed your putter even if you can putt, but especially if you can't. No, they really don't care.

5.) Practice more than you play, and if you're lucky enough to play a round by yourself with nobody else on the course, drop a few balls on the ground and do both.

6.) Most importantly, have fun because if you can keep up, and don't act like a jerk, nobody cares how poorly you play.

Originally Posted by LongballGer

Telling him to work more on his short game is still working around the core problem though. While the short game is simpler to learn from a technical standpoint it still takes as much effort and time to develop feel as it does grooving a repeatable golf swing. Your average hacker hates practicing the short game anyways because it´s boring to him. It´d make more sense to use his limited practice time to work on the long game since it has the biggest impact on his score.

[M2R]

I've been wondering something similar about instruction for a few years now but no real way to verbalize it.  In the back of my mind I always had this vague feeling something was missing or wasn't quite right with the interaction between myself and the instructors I tried.  A few guys even went so far as to tell me that my lack of success with instructors was 100% on me for having that very attitude and honestly I don't see any way to defend myself against such claims, could be 100% correct.

However, many years ago I had wanted to become a better snow skier and religiously took lessons on every trip to the mountains.  I never once felt like an instructors helped me but also never once failed to be impressed with the instructors or how much effort and passion they put into imparting that "something" I was there to find.  My point being that I do know it is possible to get instruction and not feel progress but still feel confidence in the instruction.  Looking back, while I didn't feel the individual lessons were helpful, I see the process of taking the lessons as absolutely essential to success.  Meaning that the person giving my sixth lesson is prodding, cajoling, tricking, or in any other way they think will work trying to impart the next thing I need to progress.  In the mean time something from my second lesson is actually taking form where idea meets experience.  And so it goes until, taken as a whole, those instructors did get me where I wanted to go.  But individually not one of them saw the fruit of their labors pay off.  Doing some research into how these instructors are taught, what they are taught, and how they are certified might provide some insight into how and why their system works.  In golf instruction I don't have any information that would suggest there exists anything near that level of organization or sophistication for a teaching process.  It could exist somewhere I just don't know where to find that information.

My informed opinion is that skiing is a pretty tough sport if you wish to perform at a level that gives you a chance to make the Olympic team.  My ignorant opinion is that golf would be a whole lot easier if there were some better instruction widely available.  I'm totally excited about the advances I perceive S&T; thinking has brought to us.  But I also see it as just a very good start that only scratches the surface of what needs done.  I wish I had something to contribute to that end but in this regard I am the one in need of the help and in no position to offer anything useful.

[The_Pharaoh]

A lot of my students have mastered the technical side of the chip, but don't know the theory behind it i.e. which club to use in a particular situation and where to bounce the ball to have it roll up to the pin. Generally, they are one-club players (SW) and duff/skull most shots complicating what is in fact a very simple motion. After a one hour lesson and minimal practice, my students shave at least 5 shots off their scores. I don't care how good a teacher you are, you are not going to get those results with a one-hour long game lesson.

Originally Posted by LongballGer

Telling him to work more on his short game is still working around the core problem though. While the short game is simpler to learn from a technical standpoint it still takes as much effort and time to develop feel as it does grooving a repeatable golf swing. Your average hacker hates practicing the short game anyways because it´s boring to him. It´d make more sense to use his limited practice time to work on the long game since it has the biggest impact on his score.

[MikeLowry5]

Originally Posted by iacas

Before I respond to some specifics, please know that I agree for the large part that:

a) instruction sucks a lot more time than it doesn't suck

b) the physics and geometry are the same regardless of the golfer, his location, which side he swings from, etc.

There are several schools of hitting out there, and unlike golf, direction is somewhat irrelevant. Not only can you hit the ball 45 degrees left or right of straight, but the bat is round, so it doesn't matter so much how much it's turned or where it's "facing." And golfers can hit "home runs" with their pitching wedges, so the distance in golf is that much greater.

And yet, even given those, there are again several schools of hitting out there. They have variations and different patterns for hitting a baseball. Some want a stride. Some want a step in place. Some are purely rotary.

The proper grip is different for every person. Again, golf can't really be compared to baseball. Or a two-handed backhand in tennis for various reasons. You can't "figure out" a universal grip. Major championships have been won with grips of all kinds.

Golf is complex. Again, the angles and speeds and distances make it complex. The fact that there's almost no margin for error - the ball's sitting on the ground most of the time - make it difficult. That the terrain always changes. Conditions.

And guys in the 1930s were playing shorter, easier courses. They wouldn't be shooting in the 60s today.

That's only absolutely true in match play and formal competitions (even in those you can change up the order if you have to hit the restroom and aren't doing so in order to gain an advantage). In those formal competitions, including the PGA Tour, you may want to hit, but you'll hit in the order in which you're supposed to hit.

What's your proof that it doesn't?

If you had time to look at the different "schools of thought" regarding hitting it would reveal that the difference of opinions are simply a matter of interpretation.  Specifically, weight shift vs rotational mechanics.  Both "schools of thought" reference the same players when validating their explanations.  In reality a baseball swing has weight shift and rotation.  The weight shift is minimal and more a function of the transfer of energy at that speed causes your body to move back a bit when setting your hands and to move forward when attacking the baseball.

Golf has more working parts then baseball as the swing is "longer" so it adds a few levels of interpretation but, overall there is only one correct way to hit a golf ball straight and that is a square clubface to the path and target at impact.  Disagree?

[The_Pharaoh]

OP?

This is a good post and backs up my first post on this thread which explained that the long game is merely one aspect of a complex sport. Point 1 below is exactly how I try to help my students by not just teaching the technical side of the game, but all the other aspects of the sport too (preparation, warm up, fitness, course management, mental side, statistics etc.). Many students already hit the ball well enough imho, but fail to improve their scores because they neglect many other areas of their game. Areas they could improve without even having to swing a club or think technically.

When a new student comes to me for a lesson I ask them what their goal is, what they want to get out of the lesson. Usually, the conversation ends with them telling me they'd eventually like to cut their handicap by 6 or so e.g. from 18 to 12. So I tell them, "in order to get to 12 you need to think and act like a 12 handicapper. You have to make changes to the way you go about your golf".

99% of the lessons I see other pros given are on the driving range with the student hitting 7 irons. 1% of golfers will improve with that sort of instruction, 99% of my students improve with the way I teach.

Originally Posted by sean_miller

I have some thoughts that may lower the OP's scores.

Dear OP

Don't focus on the percentages yet. Focus on the techniques, making quality contact, and eventually scoring.

1.) Don't use your driver. You think you can hit it but you really can't. Get yourself an 18-21 degree hybrid with proper shaft for your swing and use that off every driver hole. On longer holes use it from the fairway as well. Learn to hit it high, low, bend it left to right, and bend it right to left.

[sean_miller]

I probably shouldn't have responded with a quote because I was actually addressing the "OP" or "Original Poster" (i.e. in this case the guy who doesn't care what people say because he made up his mind before starting this thread). There are many ways to teach a person how to swing because every person is different. BUT each club needs to meet the ball in a certain way to make a certain shot. The OP (and others) need to groove a repeatable swing and learn how to hit shots with his own sticks. What works for person A with his setup won't necessarily work for person B with his.

Originally Posted by The_Pharaoh

OP?

This is a good post and backs up my first post on this thread which explained that the long game is merely one aspect of a complex sport. Point 1 below is exactly how I try to help my students by not just teaching the technical side of the game, but all the other aspects of the sport too (preparation, warm up, fitness, course management, mental side, statistics etc.). Many students already hit the ball well enough imho, but fail to improve their scores because they neglect many other areas of their game. Areas they could improve without even having to swing a club or think technically.

When a new student comes to me for a lesson I ask them what their goal is, what they want to get out of the lesson. Usually, the conversation ends with them telling me they'd eventually like to cut their handicap by 6 or so e.g. from 18 to 12. So I tell them, "in order to get to 12 you need to think and act like a 12 handicapper. You have to make changes to the way you go about your golf".

99% of the lessons I see other pros given are on the driving range with the student hitting 7 irons. 1% of golfers will improve with that sort of instruction, 99% of my students improve with the way I teach.

[The_Pharaoh]

Originally Posted by MikeLowry5

Golf has more working parts then baseball as the swing is "longer" so it adds a few levels of interpretation but, overall there is only one correct way to hit a golf ball straight and that is a square clubface to the path and target at impact.  Disagree?

I agree, however there are many, many ways to achieve that impact position. And what makes golf even more complicated is the fact that it is not a good idea to try and hit the ball dead straight. That's why I like the Golf Evolution's theory of the push-draw being the stock shot for irons and push-fade for the driver (I think they are contemplating this now).

[iacas]

Originally Posted by nleary9201

I just reinforces my point that you guys can't agree on much of anything when it comes to golf instruction, leaving us hackers in limbo. You admit you play with guys who have been playing forever and never break 100. Maybe that says something about the state of the golf teaching profession.

For the last time, we've already pointed out that there are flaws in your reasoning that "[insert other sport here] instruction" doesn't vary, and we've agreed with you that 90% or so of the golf instructors out there do kinda suck. Too many people don't take lessons. Something like 14% of all golfers. Why? Perhaps because most instructors are terrible. But guess what? It doesn't help your claim when "nobody gets better" and yet 86% of golfers have never even TAKEN a lesson, and of the 14% who have, many took one or two and never practiced like they would have needed to.

If you want to get better at golf, find a good instructor, take lessons, and commit to your own improvement . Right now you're just taking pot shots from the side line.

Originally Posted by The_Pharaoh

I turned pro because I want to be the instructor I would have loved to have had when I was getting started in this awesome game. My job is to explain aspects of the game and guide players in the right direction so they can improve ASAP, without having to go through the trial and error I went through.

And despite seeing differences in the students he teaches (we don't get many 36+), that's why Phil's a good instructor. He, like us, does the things you asked: a scientific approach to the golf swing based not in guesses and "the way it's always been done" but in actual physics, geometry, etc.

Originally Posted by LongballGer

A hacker doesn´t enjoy sacrificing his free time and hitting balls for hours on the range to engrain a new move.He enjoys having a couple beers with his buddies and playing 9 holes and there is nothing wrong with that, but he´ll never improve much.

Right. He's among the 86% that don't improve... the 86% that can't be used to say "instructors suck" (again, I agree...) because they've never seen an instructor.

Originally Posted by LongballGer

While the short game is simpler to learn from a technical standpoint it still takes as much effort and time to develop feel as it does grooving a repeatable golf swing.

I do disagree with that. Part of the reason we teach less short game is because it's easy to pick up. The student doesn't need four lessons to implement major changes - they'll often do it in 15 minutes once they know how. Then they have to re-develop their touch, but that doesn't take long either... and even if they don't it's never worse than their original touch mis-hitting their shots.

Originally Posted by M2R

In golf instruction I don't have any information that would suggest there exists anything near that level of organization or sophistication for a teaching process.  It could exist somewhere I just don't know where to find that information.

There's no such thing because there's no one "method" to swing the golf club and it's several orders of magnitude more complex than skiiing.

Originally Posted by MikeLowry5

Golf has more working parts then baseball as the swing is "longer" so it adds a few levels of interpretation but, overall there is only one correct way to hit a golf ball straight and that is a square clubface to the path and target at impact. Disagree?

No, but who would? The trouble is that there are about a billion different ways to get to that impact position you want.

Originally Posted by The_Pharaoh

99% of the lessons I see other pros given are on the driving range with the student hitting 7 irons. 1% of golfers will improve with that sort of instruction, 99% of my students improve with the way I teach.

That's not really accurate. What matters is how many of those students have good instructors. If it's 10%, then close to 10% of those "7-iron golfers" should improve. I agree the percentage is low, but only because the percentage of poor instructors is so high.

Originally Posted by sean_miller

What works for person A with his setup won't necessarily work for person B with his.

While true in terms of what "feelings" will work for one person or another, the science of that isn't true. I don't want to belabor the point, so basically, it's this: teaching the golf swing is part science and part art. The science is the geometry, physics, biokinetics, etc. The art is boiling all that down in such a way that it helps the individual student in front of you at the time.

[Zeph]

Originally Posted by The_Pharaoh

99% of the lessons I see other pros given are on the driving range with the student hitting 7 irons. 1% of golfers will improve with that sort of instruction, 99% of my students improve with the way I teach.

What has the club used got to do with anything? I agree that a lot of the instructors don't do a very good job, but if you want to improve ballstriking, a 7 iron on the range is a good place to start. Preferably with a camera.

Improving your short game and putting is easier because of the simple fact that the distance is up to 40-50 yards from the hole and rarely involves a full swing. There are so much more stuff that can go wrong in a full swing at 100 mph.

[The_Pharaoh]

Originally Posted by iacas

That's not really accurate. What matters is how many of those students have good instructors. If it's 10%, then close to 10% of those "7-iron golfers" should improve. I agree the percentage is low, but only because the percentage of poor instructors is so high.

OK, I may have been a little harsh there. My point being that the majority of golfers (in my experience) do very little practice between lessons and just turn up each week with their 7 irons repeating the previous week's lesson as if stuck in Groundhog Day. Even the best instructor in the world struggle with those students as they simply don't hit enough balls in order to ingrain a change.

[The_Pharaoh]

Originally Posted by Zeph

What has the club used got to do with anything? I agree that a lot of the instructors don't do a very good job, but if you want to improve ballstriking, a 7 iron on the range is a good place to start. Preferably with a camera.

You missed my point entirely. I'm not saying it's not a good place to start. It shouldn't be the only type of lesson a student receives.

[The_Pharaoh]

Originally Posted by Zeph

Improving your short game and putting is easier because of the simple fact that the distance is up to 40-50 yards from the hole and rarely involves a full swing. There are so much more stuff that can go wrong in a full swing at 100 mph.

Exactly my point. However, Erik doesn't agree with us.

[Zeph]

That depends what the student or instructor wants to work on. All my lessons so far has been me hitting a 6 iron, I wouldn't have it any other way, at least not at this point. When working on the swing you have to swing a club. Minigunning balls obviously won't do much good, part of the instruction should be explaining what you want the student to do and why. Not talking about accumulators and flying wedges, but making it simple enough to not become confusing.

Originally Posted by The_Pharaoh

Exactly my point. However, Erik doesn't agree with us.

I said the short game was easier to work on, but I believe over 50% of the shots wasted are because of ballstriking, and that the path to becoming a better player should start with improving the swing. The short game and putting is something any golfer can work on quite easily himself with some internet tips, a book or DVD. The full swing is far more difficult to fix yourself. If I had to teach a 25 handicapper, I would perhaps give him some quick tips on putting and chipping, but definitely spend most of the time on the full swing.

I've gotten to handicap 11 and almost never practiced putting or the short game. I do putt around on a practice green, but nothing with a definitive purpose. I hit some chips and pitches before a round or after a range session, but it's rarely more than some 5-10 minutes and not really making an effort at making a change. My putting and short game has gotten better while the rest of my game improved of course, but I would not have reached 11 if I started working on the short game and putting at handicap 25.

[Harmonious]

Originally Posted by Zeph

I said the short game was easier to work on, but I believe over 50% of the shots wasted are because of ballstriking, and that the path to becoming a better player should start with improving the swing. The short game and putting is something any golfer can work on quite easily himself with some internet tips, a book or DVD. The full swing is far more difficult to fix yourself. If I had to teach a 25 handicapper, I would perhaps give him some quick tips on putting and chipping, but definitely spend most of the time on the full swing.

I've gotten to handicap 11 and almost never practiced putting or the short game. I do putt around on a practice green, but nothing with a definitive purpose. I hit some chips and pitches before a round or after a range session, but it's rarely more than some 5-10 minutes and not really making an effort at making a change. My putting and short game has gotten better while the rest of my game improved of course, but I would not have reached 11 if I started working on the short game and putting at handicap 25.

Zeph, you may be the perfect poster child for this discussion.  You say you have only seriously practiced your full swing up to this point (hdcp 11.7), which means you get it around the course OK, mid-80's or so.  You obviously know a lot about one swing method.

From this point forward in your game, how many strokes will be able to drop by only working on your full swing?  2 or 3 maybe?  How many strokes would you drop if you had an almost-tour-quality short game and putting stroke?  I would guess at least 5, assuming you are not already naturally blessed with perfect rhythm and touch on the greens, and average under 30 putts per round, and over 50% up-and-downs.

That's why I originally posted that until someone hits that point (I'll say 12 handicap), long game is the most important.  After that level is reached, then it's all about the short game, if you truly want lower scores.

[The_Pharaoh]

Originally Posted by Harmonious

From this point forward in your game, how many strokes will be able to drop by only working on your full swing?  2 or 3 maybe?  How many strokes would you drop if you had an almost-tour-quality short game and putting stroke?  I would guess at least 5, assuming you are not already naturally blessed with perfect rhythm and touch on the greens, and average under 30 putts per round, and over 50% up-and-downs.

Harmonious, you seem to be the only one on my wavelength! This is my point. But in my experience it also extends to higher handicappers. Yes, they'll be able to save lots of shots with better long games, but they waste MORE shots due to their poor short games/putting.

Zeph's conclusions surprise me after what he wrote. His lessons are all with a 6 iron and he spends no time practicing his short game and putting, yet he still continues to believe his ball striking is letting him down. If he spent the time he spends with his 6 iron on his short game/putting he'd be a 5 handicapper.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by The_Pharaoh

Exactly my point. However, Erik doesn't agree with us.

Originally Posted by iacas

I do disagree with that. Part of the reason we teach less short game is because it's easy to pick up. The student doesn't need four lessons to implement major changes - they'll often do it in 15 minutes once they know how. Then they have to re-develop their touch, but that doesn't take long either... and even if they don't it's never worse than their original touch mis-hitting their shots.

Never did I say that learning the short game wasn't easy. I have said that, relative to their ballstriking, the average player's short game is better than their ballstriking.

Originally Posted by Harmonious

Zeph, you may be the perfect poster child for this discussion.

Zeph might very well be in the 40% that needs to work on his short game for a bit. And I'd have no problem whatsoever telling him that if I concluded that after watching him. We're talking about generalities, though, and generally speaking 60 to 65% of golfers have a better short game relative to their ballstriking. Stats I've compiled along with MoneyGolf and many other stats back that up.

Zeph, what are your stats? You're just one guy, and can't speak to the general 60/40 or 65/35 or whatever ratio I believe exists, but... what are your stats? How well do you putt and get up and down and so on?

[bwdial]

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Pharaoh

Harmonious, you seem to be the only one on my wavelength! This is my point. But in my experience it also extends to higher handicappers. Yes, they'll be able to save lots of shots with better long games, but they waste MORE shots due to their poor short games/putting.

Zeph's conclusions surprise me after what he wrote. His lessons are all with a 6 iron and he spends no time practicing his short game and putting, yet he still continues to believe his ball striking is letting him down. If he spent the time he spends with his 6 iron on his short game/putting he'd be a 5 handicapper.

I find it interesting that you quoted that part, but left out this nugget of pure genius:

Quote:

That's why I originally posted that until someone hits that point (I'll say 12 handicap), long game is the most important.  After that level is reached, then it's all about the short game, if you truly want lower scores.

That's really the crux of the situation.  Until a player gets to that 12 - 18 handicap range, it's really more about ball-striking.  In my - obviously less esteemed and qualified - opinion, a player should be able to get within 10-20 yards of the green in regulation before beginning to focus more on the short game, mainly because skill in the long game fosters a tremendous amount of confidence.  Also, by being relatively proficient in the long game, players are able to take some of the pressure off of their short games.

If I'm just short or wide of the green in regulation, I'm pitching/chipping for birdie and I'm much more confident than if I am pitching/chipping for bogey.  If I'm chipping for birdie my mindset is if I get it close, I can make par, but I'm looking at bogey at the worst.  If I'm chipping for bogey, my dauber's down and I'm feeling a lot more pressure, because triple bogey - or worse - is swimming around my brain.

As a golfer that's struggled in the long game, I understand how embarrassing those failures can be, and embarrassment inevitably leads to a lack of confidence.  Failures in the long game are so much more visible, and are so much more destructive to confidence.

[Zeph]

Originally Posted by The_Pharaoh

Zeph's conclusions surprise me after what he wrote. His lessons are all with a 6 iron and he spends no time practicing his short game and putting, yet he still continues to believe his ball striking is letting him down. If he spent the time he spends with his 6 iron on his short game/putting he'd be a 5 handicapper.

Because my ballstriking is still letting med down. It's leaps and bounds better than it used to be, but I'm absolutely not at a comfortable level yet. I rarely waste shots going OB anymore, tee shots are usually OK, but my iron game is lacking the accuracy and striking the ball properly. My swingpath has gotten a lot better, so the biggest issue now is flipping. Something that affect both distance and accuracy. I'm still losing too many shots on the long game.

Originally Posted by iacas

Zeph might very well be in the 40% that needs to work on his short game for a bit. And I'd have no problem whatsoever telling him that if I concluded that after watching him. We're talking about generalities, though, and generally speaking 60 to 65% of golfers have a better short game relative to their ballstriking. Stats I've compiled along with MoneyGolf and many other stats back that up.

Zeph, what are your stats? You're just one guy, and can't speak to the general 60/40 or 65/35 or whatever ratio I believe exists, but... what are your stats? How well do you putt and get up and down and so on?

I do need to work on my short game. Not that I'm horrible, but there are definitely place for improvement. My putting is better than the short game. The short game is of course also a result of the long game. U&D; stats with 3 GIR won't be high. I never recorded stats, so I don't know really. I've always been working on my swing, so I never cared for my short game and putting stats. I knew I'd get to that stuff later at some point when my swing was more reliable. After reading The Art Of The Short Game by Stan Utley, I played a round or two where I focused on the short game and I believe I got U&D; 6/7 times one round, feeling really good about the short game. I didn't keep the focus on the short game, so some of the stuff faded away. I have read and discussed the short game a lot, some of which I've put into play without thinking about it, but never practiced it with a purpose.

I agree with bwdial, your confidence in the short game raises when you're chipping to get U&D; for par, not a bogey or double bogey. When my long game is working, it elevates every part of my game.