"Method Teachers" and "Method Instruction"

[iacas]

I posted this on Facebook in regards to "method instruction" being bad or close-minded or fixed or whatnot, and I disagree entirely. And I wanted to share it here as well, as it's important and relevant.

Quote:

Every good instructor has a method. A method is "a procedure, technique, or way of doing something, especially in accordance with a definite plan." Who would admit to not having a plan for a student?

In golf "method teacher" seems to be used as a bad thing, as in "he applies the *same* method to every student." But there's a whole large swath of space between the method being very general like "good contact, hit the ball reasonably far, know where the ball is going" and "the shaft needs to twist about its axis 17.5 degrees while the left arm moves 35 degrees across the chest" (to be clear, I don't think anybody's teaching the latter). Where's the line in the middle that separates those two? Or are both of those "methods"?

Everyone is a method teacher to some degree or another, because nobody who says "no method" really means that - they're simply trying to sell themselves as "I teach the golfer" or "I just teach good impact." Their method is the "'No Method' Method!" To truly have no method is to truly have no plan for a student, and again, nobody teaches that way.

"Method" is misused. Every good instructor teaches the student they have in front of them. Every good instructor teaches "impact." Every good instructor has a "method" because to claim otherwise is to claim that you don't have a plan.

And finally, IMHO, the only way a "method" limits growth is if the "method" becomes so precisely defined that acceptable ranges shrink and cease to become wide ranges of acceptable values or components. Personally, I like generous ranges with constant prioritization so the student can improve.

To put it another way: if you ask any "no method" teacher enough questions, you'll be able to suss out their "method."

[turtleback]

I think there is a difference between having a method of teaching and teaching a (specific) method of swinging.  You seem to be defending against criticism of the latter by invoking the former, if I am understanding you correctly.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by turtleback

I think there is a difference between having a method of teaching and teaching a (specific) method of swinging.  You seem to be defending against criticism of the latter by invoking the former, if I am understanding you correctly.

That's the thing. I think that every instructor teaches a specific "method of swinging" to any particular student. So, they have a method for that student. They have to.

There are undoubtedly some teachers who try to shoehorn every student out there into a single, specific, very tight standard of measurement, but those instructors are nowhere near as prevalent as the "'No Method' Method" instructors would have you believe. The "shoehorners" don't last very long.

So again it almost comes down to how specific you want to be with the word "specific." :-) How tight are the allowable variances? I feel that the "method" I teach has some really wide variances, and I will resist any attempts to narrow that focus down except in a few key areas that virtually all instructors would agree to (ideal amount of shaft lean at impact has a low variance from, say, +3 to +7 degrees, perhaps).

[newtogolf]

My first instructor appeared to me to be a "No Method" instructor.  He had me swing at a few balls on the range and started to make adjustments.  He didn't suggest any specific method or golfer to emulate, basically stating we all have a natural swing motion and he works with that as the basis.  I did make some progress while with him, but it was very inconsistent.  What would work during one range session didn't the next, then I'd go for a lesson, he'd make more adjustments that would work for a while again then stop.  He was a great guy, but he wasn't the right instructor for me.

My current instructor definitely has a method, he believes Ben Hogan is a golf genius and had one of the best swings in the history of golf.  Everyone that he works with learns the basis of Ben Hogans approach to the golf swing with some minor variances that he's incorporated.  I've found this approach much more successful for me because there's a method I've learned and understand.  I hit my irons further and more consistently than I ever have, and if I do miss, I can tell what I did wrong and fix it myself(something I never could with my first instructor).  Having Hogans Five Lessons as the blue print to my swing makes it easy to review and pick up nuances that I missed or couldn't appreciate the first few times I read it.

As for shoe horning, my current instructor said he'd like to work with Dustin Johnson but would never consider working with Bubba Watson because his swing is so unconventional he wouldn't know how to even begin.  I guess which approach is best if between the student and instructor.  I prefer the instructor having a method assuming it's a proven one.

[iacas]

newtogolf, that's a good point. Students often like a method because it lets them understand where they are now and what they need to do - over time - to get where they want to be.

[jshots]

Whatever method makes the ball go straight and far and i'm in!

[Hollister]

Eric, this is a very important topic. At least for me, since it is the reason why I am still playing golf. If it weren't for a "method" and your posting here, I would have buried my golf bag in the basement 18 months ago.

Actually, I never really understood the heated discussion on method teaching. From a European view - alas Germany - you'll be taught the traditional swing by the majority of golf pros which goes by-the-book. In my experiences they just tell every beginner what to do. Do this, hmm, better - and so on. The background has to be acquired by the student reading hopefully a good book. All my lessons went that way. No instructor actually explained what he is going to teach me. And lately no instructor ask me why I try to keep centered over the ball - all three pros I met tried to make me move my weight back when swinging back (all nice guys walking by and offered their help).

I felt that being left in the dark or dumb is not what I was looking for. Makes a nice cash cow for the pro, but does not really answer my questions on how to get it done.

Being taught Stack & Tilt, reading up in the book and finally watching the DVDs was excellent so far. As you abilities progress you can take over control, instead of just being controlled by a pro holding back on you. S&T; was very transparent. I would not want to do it without the help of a pro, but practice is way more rewarding that way. You have checkpoints and can work toward you goal. Since feel is not real, you need to reach certain positions in your swing to hit the ball right. Physics rule...

One thing I never got is that "everybody needs to swing his very own way", like the pro has to carve a new swing for every student. Since we all share the same physics, how many useful variations could there be or could your local pro "invent" for you? Marrrrrketing... :D

Bottom line, ask your current pro what "method"/approach/theory etc. he is teaching and read up on it. It'll make learning way easier and hopefully faster. If he is not telling you straight away, well, it is trust or leave.

Well, thanks Eric for endorsing my current "method swing"!

[Topper]

I'm new to golf but I like what you said.  I understand that there are certain fundamentals that are inherent to making consistent contact with the ball and the need for instructors to be organized and have an approach to teaching golf.  I disagree when the approach evolves more into a swing mechanic that is so rigid that the focus is on obtaining specific body positions at various points through the "one and only PGA-approved" swing.  It's probably related, but I disagree with teaching older golfers with limited flexibility, fitness, and other issues the same swing mechanics that are "proven" on the PGA tour.

[mihi4]

Hmmm.... here's my (long, sorry) answer on a Volleyball trainer's point of view:

As short background: I'm 37, I have been playing sportsgames for as long as I can remember, played professional Volleyball for 20 years, studied sports and spent the last 2 years training and coaching a women's pro team.

Actual hcp is 18.6, never had a pro lesson (except the 2 required courses you need here in Austria).

To me, every technique in sports, where the result gives the definition of "good vs. bad", has some basic fundamentals which have to be done, to give the required result. But these fundamentals are only a small part, the rest is individual, where people are able to compensate some flaws in their technique with physical abilities.

In Volleyball, playing a pass requires the arms to point at the desired target. It's better to use straight arms, but you can  get away with bend arms, as long as the level of the "competition" is the same as your level of technique.

You can have fun playing some beach volley with your friends (where nobody ever got a lesson) with your "wrong" technique, but you won't have much fun if you have to receive an 80mph jump serve with it.

I think, every golf pro should at first have a talk with the pupils about their goals. Depending on the required results, the "method of swinging" should be chosen and because of this the resulting "method of teaching" should be decided. I.e. for a casual golfer who plays 2 times a month with no time to practice, don't try to fit them into a complete swing method, but make sure, he's more or less "right" through the impact zone with his "individual" swing.

IMO, the way (method) to teach _ALWAYS_ has to fit the pupil.

When I watch some golf pros at the ranges I visit, the level of didactic knowledge is horrible -> that's where I would say, a "Method Pro" is a bad thing, because the pupil cannot reach his/her full potential because of the pro's limitations in teaching, depending only on his one method.

greetings

michi

[rustyredcab]

For me, having a model that I am trying to copy has been very helpful. I guess you'd call this "method" teaching. I try to swing like Moe Norman in his competitive days before he became a paid endorser of Natural Golf. Moe was one of the greatest ball strikers ever. Moe's swing can be copied without 20-year-old flexibility. It is easy on the back and the joints. Having Moe as a model allows me to check my swing against his and work toward copying him. My teachers teach Moe's swing. The pupil should fit the method. Unless you have physical limitations that stop you from being able to hit the three or four positions needed to swing like Moe, they teach you to swing like Moe. I don't know how guys do it with a little of this and a little of that and create their own swing. Give me a model/method.

[allin]

Hmmm.... here's my (long, sorry) answer on a Volleyball trainer's point of view:

As short background: I'm 37, I have been playing sportsgames for as long as I can remember, played professional Volleyball for 20 years, studied sports and spent the last 2 years training and coaching a women's pro team.

Actual hcp is 18.6, never had a pro lesson (except the 2 required courses you need here in Austria).

To me, every technique in sports, where the result gives the definition of "good vs. bad", has some basic fundamentals which have to be done, to give the required result. But these fundamentals are only a small part, the rest is individual, where people are able to compensate some flaws in their technique with physical abilities.

In Volleyball, playing a pass requires the arms to point at the desired target. It's better to use straight arms, but you can  get away with bend arms, as long as the level of the "competition" is the same as your level of technique.

You can have fun playing some beach volley with your friends (where nobody ever got a lesson) with your "wrong" technique, but you won't have much fun if you have to receive an 80mph jump serve with it.

I think, every golf pro should at first have a talk with the pupils about their goals. Depending on the required results, the "method of swinging" should be chosen and because of this the resulting "method of teaching" should be decided. I.e. for a casual golfer who plays 2 times a month with no time to practice, don't try to fit them into a complete swing method, but make sure, he's more or less "right" through the impact zone with his "individual" swing.

IMO, the way (method) to teach _ALWAYS_ has to fit the pupil.

When I watch some golf pros at the ranges I visit, the level of didactic knowledge is horrible -> that's where I would say, a "Method Pro" is a bad thing, because the pupil cannot reach his/her full potential because of the pro's limitations in teaching, depending only on his one method.

greetings

michi

You are not really referring to method but advancing skill levels. Basic levels of fundamentals are intrinsic to all sports. There are always individuals who are exeptions, but they are few. For example throwing a ball. The real fundamentals are moving your body in balance, shifting your weight effeciently, developing a consistent release point. Arm angles, range of motion, how much leg drive, grip can vary. In my view method teachers cross the line when they insist that the technical elements, arm angle, grip, how far back you take your arm are absolute. Good teachers have a range of technical tools that they can present to different students. In golf there are several elements involved in power and accuracy. Different people posses these gifts in various proportions. So the techniques vary as well. A person who is tall, flexible but not very strong will focus on arc for power and rythym for accuracy. A short person with powerful upper body may focus on rotation for power and grip to limit hand action for accuracy. The fundamentals are the same, but the area of technique emphasized varies.

[Texas solo]

Originally Posted by mihi4    for a casual golfer who plays 2 times a month with no time to practice, don't try to fit them into a complete swing method, but make sure, he's more or less "right" through the impact zone with HIS "individual" swing.

This makes the most sense to me.   Every student is an individual with different flaws and needs.  I have serious physical handicaps, so a "you must do it this way" instructor is worthless to me. I want an instructor who can work within MY abilities to achieve the goal of simple, basic good ball striking.

[newtogolf]

I don't think method instruction means one swing concept fits all, I see it as meaning there's a foundation and structure to the swing that you and your instructor build for you based on your individual needs.  If an instructor watches you swing and then just suggests band-aids or "fixes" to your swing how do you identify problems or corrections on your own?

Originally Posted by Texas solo

This makes the most sense to me.   Every student is an individual with different flaws and needs.  I have serious physical handicaps, so a "you must do it this way" instructor is worthless to me. I want an instructor who can work within MY abilities to achieve the goal of simple, basic good ball striking.