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

[sean_miller]

Not sure what the OP was looking for, but the ball doesn't care what the club did before and after contact, only during. People are people and even if they were all taught the same way, they'd each end up in a different place with their game. Having said that, I'm not sure how one becomes good at the short game without being a good ball striker. Practicing short game can enhance creativity and knowledge of how to get the ball to land where you want, based on how ball will likely react once it hits the ground, but the ball's not hitting itself there. You still have to have good ball striking to pitch it close.

[bwdial]

Quote:

Myth.

That's not to say there's not some truth to it, but... the average Nationwide Tour pro is statistically just about as good a putter as the average PGA Tour pro. But the average PGA Tour pro hits more greens and hits shots closer to the hole.

I was sort of lumping all touring professionals together.  I have a couple of friends who are/were teaching pros, and they are generally really good tee-to-green, but their putting kept them from going to that next level.

My point was that at the hacker/duffer level, the long game is the most important.  You generally have to commit a rules violation to incur a penalty stroke on the green, but it's easy to incur penalty strokes any time you have to get the ball in the air if you are a high handicapper.  Of course, there are some folks that avoid going OB because they simply can't hit it that far.  I took my daughter to the range the other day, and the vast majority of the people out there fell into that category.  I would hazard a guess that a couple of the people out there would card - legitimately - at least an eight or ten on every 350 yard par four they would encounter on the course.  They may claim sixes and eights, but judging from the (lack of) distance they hit the ball, it would take them at least six or seven strokes to cover 350 yards.

The guy to my immediate right was the only other person out there who could consistently make the club-face contact the ball and get it into the air.  He alternated between low pulls that traveled about 75 yards downrange, but 25-50 yards left and wild slices that managed to go over 100 yards downrange, but with a minimum of a 75 yard slice.  He was three stations in from the left side of the range, hitting balls into the trees that separated the range from the course on the right.

Every single one of these people could be wizards in the short game and it wouldn't matter a lick because they would already be well over par before they ever reached the green.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by The_Pharaoh

My last comment was a bit cheeky in reply to your comment about Pelz! ;-)

Cheeky is fine. It fell flat because Dave and James and I think we teach the short game incredibly well, but think it would NOT be in our student's interests to teach it as often as you seem to want us to. MOST students need MORE work on their full swing in order to get better.

I like teaching the short game. I wish I could justify doing it more.

Originally Posted by The_Pharaoh

The above 8 is a very common example for the high handicappers I teach.

I don't know how you define high handicappers but I've yet to see the high handicapper who is consistently "close to the green" in regulation.

And I've been talking about the average golfer... ~ an 18 index. They're coming for a lesson - sadly, that self-selects the true average down to about a 12 or so, probably.

Originally Posted by The_Pharaoh

Where possible, I like to play a full 18-hole round with potential students in order to get a feel for their entire game. I take my pen and notebook with me and jot down every swing they take so we can go over the data in the club house afterwards. This allows me to then prepare them an Improvement Programme. Perhaps a 27 handicap index golfer in the US is different (I am not being funny here, we have different handicap systems), but in Spain a 27 handicapper has an average score of 8-12 shots over their handicap. Usually, a 27 handicapper doesn't go bogey-double bogey-bogey-double bogey etc., shooting 99 on a par 72 course, they go triple-par-par-bogey-double-quadruple-par-double-bogey-double-par on their way to 110. I am not making this up, this is what I observe all the time. For me, the above is the typical golfer. I was exaggerating the poor short game for effect (although I have seen worse!), but maybe it's not 3 or 4 chips and then 3 putts, but it's rarely 1 chip, 2 putts and hardly ever 1 chip, 1 putt. The data proves that they would be genuine 27 handicappers OR better if they could simply chip on and take no more than 2 putts.

Thing is, again, I doubt those 27 handicappers shooting 110 are "right next to the green" in regulation all the time either. There may be some cultural differences - golfers here play tees too far back, for example - but the statistics say what they say... and you teach a lot of exceptions to the rule if they're all right there near the green in regulation.

A player doesn't need a great short game if they HIT the green in regulation. Double bogey is out of the equation, and most of the time, so is bogey. Birdie is in the equation though, for most, is not likely. If you miss the GIR, birdie is almost never in the equation, and double bogey is.

For an average golfer, you get something that looks like this:

I agree you can shave strokes by getting the average golfer to make one chip and two putts. But the average golfer will save as many shots or more by just hitting the green. The stats bear this out. Again, GIR is the single biggest determinant in a player's score. Score ultimately determines handicap.

Originally Posted by The_Pharaoh

That is why I said it was difficult for most golfers to improve their swing considerably. Not because they can't but because they simply do not have the time. I focus on the short game as students can improve very quickly, usually in the first lesson. They see the results immediately, rather than having to trust me for a few weeks until their swing starts to come good.

Again, I'm not trying to make any assumptions about your abilities as an instructor, but suffice to say we see results with the full swing in that same time span - one lesson - and often in the first few swings.

I think the short game is easier to teach. I think it's easier to "get good" at the short game.

But if I had to choose between golfers who are rated a 3 and a 7 for short game and long game on a 1-10 scale (10 being awesome), I'll take the guy who is a 7 at the full swing and a 3 at the short game, because statistically, that guy's gonna win more often than the 3 full swing, 7 short game guy.

Originally Posted by The_Pharaoh

We disagree because you feel their long game is holding them back but the majority of the time I see that their long game is good enough to shoot their handicap or slightly better but the real reason why they are so many shots over their handicaps is because they fritter away far too many shots around the green.

With all due respect, you keep saying that, but the statistics don't back that up... The 7L3S beats the 3L7S most of the time.

Originally Posted by The_Pharaoh

Read my other post on this. I never said they were taking 7 on every hole and shooting 126 despite being near the green in regulation. But the average 28 handicapper does shoot 110 being near the green in regulation and then taking the same number or more shots to complete the hole. And please don't tell me they don't exist as they are all over the place. I invite you to play at my club in Madrid. They are up by a par 5 in 3 or 4 shots and then take 3 or 4 shots to hole out. They avoid shooting 126 because they'll then hit the next short par 3 in regulation and fluke a birdie or par.

I'm going by the statistics, man. The 28 handicapper rarely hits a GIR. They hit shots out of bounds. They dribble tee shots. They're not - as you keep claiming - near the GIR in regulation with anything close to the frequency you seem to think they are. Statistically, they're far more likely to be using their "GIR shot" to punch their tee shot out of the trees and back into play than to be getting the ball close to the green.

Now, if you want to extend "short game" to 50 yards out from the front of the green, or 75 yards, the numbers might change... but at 50 to 75 yards the motions required are more full swing than chip (I'm assuming we're not putting or rolling the ball from 75 yards out like at St. Andrews).

I don't know what to tell you Phil. I feel like I'm simply using statistics, and you're just telling me based on what you seem to believe or remember.

And frankly, we don't have a lot of 28 handicappers coming for lessons. The few times I've talked about "average golfers" and used any sort of recollection of my own, it's been an 18 handicapper or so.

The facts tell us that short of someone with an AMAZING short game, you're better off hitting the GIR. Or being really close to the GIR. If your players all do that, then again - I'd be right there with you in teaching them to improve their short games! - but statistically and from what I've seen, that's not the case. Those golfers are not on the GIR or near the GIR all that often.

[The_Pharaoh]

Serious question. Does anybody have any stats they've produced themselves by observing or playing with other golfers on the course rather than watching complete beginners on the range or surfing the net for other people's stats which they then state as fact simply because it backs up their argument?

Originally Posted by bwdial

Every single one of these people could be wizards in the short game and it wouldn't matter a lick because they would already be well over par before they ever reached the green.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Not sure what the OP was looking for, but the ball doesn't care what the club did before and after contact, only during. People are people and even if they were all taught the same way, they'd each end up in a different place with their game. Having said that, I'm not sure how one becomes good at the short game without being a good ball striker. Practicing short game can enhance creativity and knowledge of how to get the ball to land where you want, based on how ball will likely react once it hits the ground, but the ball's not hitting itself there. You still have to have good ball striking to pitch it close.

Also, working on the short game can improve full swing stuff. It's not a lot, but some of the full-swing instruction we give will, as a byproduct, improve a player's short game as they learn how the location of weight, the flying wedge, etc. feel and change contact, compression, etc.

Originally Posted by bwdial

Every single one of these people could be wizards in the short game and it wouldn't matter a lick because they would already be well over par before they ever reached the green.

Statistically, those people are more common.

For the really bad golfer, when's the last time they literally whiffed a putt? Yet they'll whiff a full swing six times a round (or more). :P

P.S. My daughter is one of the folks who could work on her short game more than her full swing. She's generally really good with a full swing. She's a terrible chipper and putter, though... Statistically, she's atypical in that regard... not that I really care to apply statistics to a kid who weighs 45 pounds and can hit the ball only 60-75 yards with her 3W...

[iacas]

Originally Posted by The_Pharaoh

Serious question. Does anybody have any stats they've produced themselves by observing or playing with other golfers on the course rather than watching complete beginners on the range or surfing the net for other people's stats which they then state as fact simply because it backs up their argument?

Uhm, I have stats. And the stats I'm talking about from MoneyGolf and Mark Sweeney and various other statisticians back up what I've observed as well.

I feel I've been clear about that. Again, I used to say "work on your short game" but these statistics convinced me otherwise.

[bwdial]

Originally Posted by The_Pharaoh

Serious question. Does anybody have any stats they've produced themselves by observing or playing with other golfers on the course rather than watching complete beginners on the range or surfing the net for other people's stats which they then state as fact simply because it backs up their argument?

I don't have any "stats" on playing partners' games... simply observations.  What I have observed, is that if these playing partners could average 175-200 yards off the tee, keep it out of the trees at least half of the time and hit their 5 iron a consistent, 140-150 yards they probably wouldn't shoot in the 140-150 range.

And, in all fairness, these folks on the range weren't all simply beginners.  There were a few men in their 50s who obviously played together on a regular basis who were warming up before a round..

I hope at least one of them brought a calculator.

[The_Pharaoh]

Originally Posted by iacas

I don't know how you define high handicappers but I've yet to see the high handicapper who is consistently "close to the green" in regulation.

Anyone shooting over 90.

Originally Posted by iacas

Thing is, again, I doubt those 27 handicappers shooting 110 are "right next to the green" in regulation all the time either. There may be some cultural differences - golfers here play tees too far back, for example - but the statistics say what they say... and you teach a lot of exceptions to the rule if they're all right there near the green in regulation.

I never said they are right next to the green in regulation all the time, but it happens more than you think. I know this because I play with high handicappers and see it for myself.

Originally Posted by iacas

A player doesn't need a great short game if they HIT the green in regulation.

Correct. But they don't hit GIRs very often even when they cream their driver and approach shot. Hence, they need a good short game to compensate.

Originally Posted by iacas

But the average golfer will save as many shots or more by just hitting the green. The stats bear this out.

This is all true but not the reality I live on a weekly basis. Better swings don't necessarily equal more GIR. You may save someone a couple of shots per round with a better long game, but far more will be saved with a solid short game.

Originally Posted by iacas

Again, I'm not trying to make any assumptions about your abilities as an instructor, but suffice to say we see results with the full swing in that same time span - one lesson - and often in the first few swings.

Hmm...now things are getting fuzzy. We'd have to define "results".

Originally Posted by iacas

I think the short game is easier to teach. I think it's easier to "get good" at the short game.

I agree.

Originally Posted by iacas

But if I had to choose between golfers who are rated a 3 and a 7 for short game and long game on a 1-10 scale (10 being awesome), I'll take the guy who is a 7 at the full swing and a 3 at the short game, because statistically, that guy's gonna win more often than the 3 full swing, 7 short game guy.

The player that chips and putts better usually wins the matches I play in because they shoot the lower score.

Originally Posted by iacas

With all due respect, you keep saying that, but the statistics don't back that up... The 7L3S beats the 3L7S most of the time.

Not according to the statistics I record.

Originally Posted by iacas

I'm going by the statistics, man. The 28 handicapper rarely hits a GIR. They hit shots out of bounds. They dribble tee shots. They're not - as you keep claiming - near the GIR in regulation with anything close to the frequency you seem to think they are. Statistically, they're far more likely to be using their "GIR shot" to punch their tee shot out of the trees and back into play than to be getting the ball close to the green.

I agree they hit very few. I agree they go OB and dribble tee shots but it's not on every hole. Obviously, if that were the case I'd work on their long games, however if a player is consistently hitting OB and dribbling tee shots they are not a 28 handicapper (ie not shooting between 95-110).

Originally Posted by iacas

Now, if you want to extend "short game" to 50 yards out from the front of the green, or 75 yards, the numbers might change... but at 50 to 75 yards the motions required are more full swing than chip (I'm assuming we're not putting or rolling the ball from 75 yards out like at St. Andrews).

Hmmm. Yes, maybe this is where we are seeing the differences. Where does the long game end and the short game start? I would say anything less than a full swing (pitching is short game to me), so it change depending on the player.

Originally Posted by iacas

I don't know what to tell you Phil. I feel like I'm simply using statistics, and you're just telling me based on what you seem to believe or remember.

Erik, it is not what I believe or remember, it is what I OBSERVE and RECORD first hand with my students. Don't assume your stats are set in stone and I've pulled mine out of my arse.

Originally Posted by iacas

And frankly, we don't have a lot of 28 handicappers coming for lessons. The few times I've talked about "average golfers" and used any sort of recollection of my own, it's been an 18 handicapper or so.

I have loads of 28 handicappers and many nearer 50 wanting to get down to 36 so they can officially play on the golf course. I am not saying these high handicappers do not waste shots with their long games, of course they do, but my point is they waste a helluva lot more on and around the greens.

Originally Posted by iacas

The facts tell us that short of someone with an AMAZING short game, you're better off hitting the GIR. Or being really close to the GIR. If your players all do that, then again - I'd be right there with you in teaching them to improve their short games! - but statistically and from what I've seen, that's not the case. Those golfers are not on the GIR or near the GIR all that often.

Of course you are better off hitting the GIR. We are not disputing that. That's what all golfers are attempting to do, however it is not easy for the average golfer or high handicapper. Therefore they need a decent short game in order to shooting lower scores more consistently. Just look at the pros, their long games consistently let them down, but how do they shoot par or better on a regular basis? Great short games.

[The_Pharaoh]

Originally Posted by bwdial

I don't have any "stats" on playing partners' games... simply observations.  What I have observed, is that if these playing partners could average 175-200 yards off the tee, keep it out of the trees at least half of the time and hit their 5 iron a consistent, 140-150 yards they probably wouldn't shoot in the 140-150 range.

People shooting 140-150 shouldn't be on the golf course. In Spain, at least, maximum handicap is 36 for both men and women. Obviously, for these people you need to work on their long games so they can get to the 110-115 range.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by The_Pharaoh

Erik, it is not what I believe or remember, it is what I OBSERVE and RECORD first hand with my students. Don't assume your stats are set in stone and I've pulled mine out of my arse.

Phil, my last post on this. Simple as I can say it, your stats (of 50 (!!!) handicappers?) are contrary to virtually every other set of statistics on this I've seen, including my own (on which I put the least amount of weight).

Simply put, the average player is a better short game player than they are with the full swing. The biggest differences between better golfers and worse golfers, statistically speaking, increases the farther the shot occurs from the hole. It's a direct correlation.

Originally Posted by The_Pharaoh

Just look at the pros, their long games consistently let them down, but how do they shoot par or better on a regular basis? Great short games.

Phil, the statistics simply do not bear this out at all.

[Harmonious]

Originally Posted by nleary9201

Good morning Erik--Just a thought about the original intent of my rant. The disagreement between you and Pharoh seems to make my point.  I am a lousy 10-12 index golfer.  We all want to play better so we listen to you scratch golfers and instructors.  But here you guys go again in total disagreement of something as important as which part of the game is most important. One say short game one say long game. Don't you guys see what you are telling us is inconsistant and opposite. What are we supposed to do? Get together ( all you instructors) come up with a message that is consistent and correct, scientifically tested and then teach us that.

Well, hope that's all cleared up now!

[bwdial]

Originally Posted by The_Pharaoh

People shooting 140-150 shouldn't be on the golf course. In Spain, at least, maximum handicap is 36 for both men and women. Obviously, for these people you need to work on their long games so they can get to the 110-115 range.

We don't have those sorts of restrictions on the rank and file golf courses.  You pay your money and you spend your six hours on the course.

Over the years, I've played with a lot of folks who have played for decades and never even broke 100.  Pretty much every one of them wasted at least two strokes per hole by either laying sod over the ball or shank-topping shots that squirted left.  If they were able to minimize those errors, they'd break 100 with ease.

[max power]

Originally Posted by bwdial

Over the years, I've played with a lot of folks who have played for decades and never even broke 100.  Pretty much every one of them wasted at least two strokes per hole by either laying sod over the ball or shank-topping shots that squirted left.  If they were able to minimize those errors, they'd break 100 with ease.

Agree 100%.

[nleary9201]

You guys have gone back and forth about this forever now.  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. I see it all the time too. I realize the student is ultimately responsibe for their game but..... Another thing, factor in the vast improvements in equipment technology, video analysis etc, etc, etc.--are score going down much??? just asking.  Some will say courses are tougher, but I don't think many courses have change from years ago. Newer course are probably longer and tougher but I think the majority are the same as they always were.

[The_Pharaoh]

All we were debating was which aspect of the game is more important. I thought one thing, Erik thought another. There is no problem with that. We both agree that all aspects of the game need to be taught and taught well. I feel the students requires 60-40% instruction in favour of the short game and Erik vice versa. How that leaves you "hackers in limbo" I have no idea. If you are still in limbo, let me give you some free advice - work on all aspects of your game and you'll improve.

I would also like to point out that neither Erik nor I stated we have been playing with guys that have been playing forever and never break 100. If you go back over the thread, you'll see that is someone else.

You hit the nail on the head when you said the student is ultimately responsible for their game. They can buy expensive drivers, play beautifully manicured courses, take all the high tech lessons they like...unfortunately, the instructor cannot hit balls for them.

The reason I got into golf instruction was because I had to figure it all out myself when I started playing as the pros at my club sucked. Sadly, 22 years later the very same 7 pros are still working there and they still suck. Although I had fun working things out for myself, I wasted a lot of time getting to a solid scratch handicap. 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. If I can get them to understand why they need to grip the club in a certain way, align correctly, believe in the correct ball flight laws etc. I feel I have done my job. After that, it most certainly is up to them.

Originally Posted by nleary9201

You guys have gone back and forth about this forever now.  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. I see it all the time too. I realize the student is ultimately responsibe for their game but..... Another thing, factor in the vast improvements in equipment technology, video analysis etc, etc, etc.--are score going down much??? just asking.  Some will say courses are tougher, but I don't think many courses have change from years ago. Newer course are probably longer and tougher but I think the majority are the same as they always were.

[LongballGer]

Your average amateur doesn´t have the time/drive to work on his swing for hours everyday and constantly monitor his progress with a teaching pro. He might take a lesson and the teaching pro will tell him what to improve, but as soon as something feels "unnatural" and the hacker hits a bad shot he´ll just go straight to his old habits and never improve. It takes around 3000-8000 reps to thorougly engrain a new move properly so that you don´t have to think about it. In reality your average hacker will hit 20 balls with the driver on the range and then hit the course. It´s not so much bad instruction (although there is a lot of that out there), but it´s simply that this game is hard and people want to enjoy it. 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.

Originally Posted by nleary9201

You guys have gone back and forth about this forever now.  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. I see it all the time too. I realize the student is ultimately responsibe for their game but..... Another thing, factor in the vast improvements in equipment technology, video analysis etc, etc, etc.--are score going down much??? just asking.  Some will say courses are tougher, but I don't think many courses have change from years ago. Newer course are probably longer and tougher but I think the majority are the same as they always were.

[The_Pharaoh]

The nail is screaming it's been hit so hard! This is EXACTLY why I started posting to this thread. Below is the reality of golf instruction and the reason why I said the short game was more important. Students can reap the benefits of an improved short game almost overnight, whereas swing changes require a lot of time and dedication, not to mention money.

Erik is probably right when he says statistics prove that hitting more GIR equates to lower scores, however for the average golfer my experience is that is hard to achieve without a lot of hard work.

Originally Posted by LongballGer

Your average amateur doesn´t have the time/drive to work on his swing for hours everyday and constantly monitor his progress with a teaching pro. He might take a lesson and the teaching pro will tell him what to improve, but as soon as something feels "unnatural" and the hacker hits a bad shot he´ll just go straight to his old habits and never improve. It takes around 3000-8000 reps to thorougly engrain a new move properly so that you don´t have to think about it. In reality your average hacker will hit 20 balls with the driver on the range and then hit the course. It´s not so much bad instruction (although there is a lot of that out there), but it´s simply that this game is hard and people want to enjoy it. 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.

[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.

Originally Posted by The_Pharaoh

The nail is screaming it's been hit so hard! This is EXACTLY why I started posting to this thread. Below is the reality of golf instruction and the reason why I said the short game was more important. Students can reap the benefits of an improved short game almost overnight, whereas swing changes require a lot of time and dedication, not to mention money.

Erik is probably right when he says statistics prove that hitting more GIR equates to lower scores, however for the average golfer my experience is that is hard to achieve without a lot of hard work.