Advertisement
Advertisement
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Spyder

Should you take golf lessons? Mark Crossfield says "Maybe not.."

23 posts in this topic

I'm still gathering my thoughts on this and I'll post them at a later time. I just wanted to post this video and see what you guys think about this.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sign up (or log in) today! It's free (and you won't see this ad anymore)!

Sign up (or log in) today! It's free (and you won't see this ad anymore)!

LOL, love Parfield...there's not much to say about this, really. He's basically saying to just use common sense. If you can play scratch golf, you don't need lessons. If you can't hit the ball where you want to, then you need lessons.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Maybe not" if you are "hitting target", can work the ball however you like, and don't particularly care to know how you are doing it. :-D

Yeah, I would say I agree with him. I just don't see very many people that fit that description. Well actually I don't see any that even have the "hitting target" part mastered.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL, love Parfield...there's not much to say about this, really. He's basically saying to just use common sense. If you can play scratch golf, you don't need lessons. If you can't hit the ball where you want to, then you need lessons.

That's not what he said, at all. He said that if you're hitting the ball where you want to, are happy with your scoring and are improving at the rate you want...... whatever those may be, then you don't need lessons. I don't think anyone could argue with that. Truth be told, most casual golfers really aren't dissatisfied with their game and don't care if they get much better, as long as they're enjoying their time on the course. Those that are not happy with their current level of play and/or the rate at which they're improving, will benefit from lessons. I can't find anything to argue with there either.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

LOL, love Parfield...there's not much to say about this, really. He's basically saying to just use common sense. If you can play scratch golf, you don't need lessons. If you can't hit the ball where you want to, then you need lessons.

I agree with this. Sure, if you're satisfied with your own results then why would you take lessons? If you're already happy with your game, the cost may not justify the reward that you would gain and deem "worth it".

The problem, I think, is that some people are going to read too deeply and think that they can reach that point on their own. I wish I had lessons as a kid because I spent years hacking and trying to make my own sense of bad shots. Bubba is definitely an anomaly that people should not try to emulate in terms of taking lessons.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENtSwing32

LOL, love Parfield...there's not much to say about this, really. He's basically saying to just use common sense. If you can play scratch golf, you don't need lessons. If you can't hit the ball where you want to, then you need lessons.

That's not what he said, at all.

He said that if you're hitting the ball where you want to, are happy with your scoring and are improving at the rate you want......whatever those may be, then you don't need lessons.

I don't think anyone could argue with that. Truth be told, most casual golfers really aren't dissatisfied with their game and don't care if they get much better, as long as they're enjoying their time on the course.

Those that are not happy with their current level of play and/or the rate at which they're improving, will benefit from lessons. I can't find anything to argue with there either.

Haha ok...I wasn't quoting him. And what you wrote is still just common sense.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENtSwing32

LOL, love Parfield...there's not much to say about this, really. He's basically saying to just use common sense. If you can play scratch golf, you don't need lessons. If you can't hit the ball where you want to, then you need lessons.

I agree with this. Sure, if you're satisfied with your own results then why would you take lessons? If you're already happy with your game, the cost may not justify the reward that you would gain and deem "worth it".

The problem, I think, is that some people are going to read too deeply and think that they can reach that point on their own. I wish I had lessons as a kid because I spent years hacking and trying to make my own sense of bad shots. Bubba is definitely an anomaly that people should not try to emulate in terms of taking lessons.

Yeah, that's true.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with this. Sure, if you're satisfied with your own results then why would you take lessons? If you're already happy with your game, the cost may not justify the reward that you would gain and deem "worth it". The problem, I think, is that some people are going to read too deeply and think that they can reach that point on their own . I wish I had lessons as a kid because I spent years hacking and trying to make my own sense of bad shots. Bubba is definitely an anomaly that people should not try to emulate in terms of taking lessons.

Many, if not most casual golfers are already at a place where they're content with their play. Whether or not you and I would be happy with that level of play is irrelevant. There are scratch golfers struggling to improve, and 20 handicappers perfectly content to continue as such. The former "need" lessons, the latter do not. At least that's how I interpret Crossfield's point. And I tend to agree.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Finding the best instructor(s) for your personality, and seeing them to improve your ball striking, putting, chipping, pitch shots or course management etc. is a fun experience. If you don't enjoy your visits or cease to enjoy it, you should stop and or see someone else. I agree with what Mark Stated, it's hard not to agree with him, but I will say that you do want to see an instructor to avoid injury. If a new golfer asks me what to do to learn golf, I would strongly recommend they see a good instructor.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Many, if not most casual golfers are already at a place where they're content with their play. Whether or not you and I would be happy with that level of play is irrelevant. There are scratch golfers struggling to improve, and 20 handicappers perfectly content to continue as such. The former "need" lessons, the latter do not.

At least that's how I interpret Crossfield's point. And I tend to agree.

I would agree with that David. My problem is, I want to improve, and Am generally never satisfied with much of anything. I guess that stems from racing, almost all racers want to someday be the Man, and win, just to bad I'm so long in life and don't that many years left to get to where I'd like to be.. :-D

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

The only person modern times or least of any player of significance that makes such a claim is Bubba Watson, but I call that at least partial BS, as he played in HS (I think) and College, so I assume there was some coaching there and a  practice regimen etc. Its sort of laughable for him or others to claim "I've never had a pro lesson".

The right coach can help anyone, assuming said person is teachable/coachable.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crossfield basically said in a very subtle way that pretty much everyone needs lessons. Without stepping on the toes of most no lessons for me folks.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

The only person modern times or least of any player of significance that makes such a claim is Bubba Watson, but I call that at least partial BS, as he played in HS (I think) and College, so I assume there was some coaching there and a  practice regimen etc. Its sort of laughable for him or others to claim "I've never had a pro lesson".

The right coach can help anyone, assuming said person is teachable/coachable.


I'm sure there are some high school and college golf coaches that can't help themselves and actually try to "coach" the kids on the team. They are probably the ones that quickly get replaced.

Parents that paid big money for many years for an actual golf pro to teach their kid how to swing, the players themselves, nor the coach have any interest in trying to change their swings just ahead of an upcoming season. The coach organizes the team and is in charge of running the team. May even go as far as offering some on course strategy but not changing swings.

College coaches are pretty much in the same boat. They recruit the best players they can recruit and have nowhere near the time to try to change the swings of the champion junior golfers they just recruited (that probably all already have a swing coach at home) even in the unlikely case that they wanted to.

IMO it's not only possible that Bubba didn't have a high school or college coach that tried to coach his swing, but more than likely.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure there are some high school and college golf coaches that can't help themselves and actually try to "coach" the kids on the team. They are probably the ones that quickly get replaced.

Parents that paid big money for many years for an actual golf pro to teach their kid how to swing, the players themselves, nor the coach have any interest in trying to change their swings just ahead of an upcoming season. The coach organizes the team and is in charge of running the team. May even go as far as offering some on course strategy but not changing swings.

College coaches are pretty much in the same boat. They recruit the best players they can recruit and have nowhere near the time to try to change the swings of the champion junior golfers they just recruited (that probably all already have a swing coach at home).

IMO it's not only possible that Bubba didn't have a high school or college coach that tried to coach his swing, but more than likely.

here you go, I doubt the coaches of these programs fit your description. A HS program that generates 3 pro's, big names no, but never the less, something was taught there, coaches come in many flavors, perhaps one is technical, another is great at mental conditioning, another at teaching how to handle pressure. But you are right if BW had a swing coach, then that guy is the worst coach practicing, that is one ugly swing, but a very effective winning swing.

Amateur career [ edit ]

Watson was born and raised in Bagdad, Florida , near Pensacola . He played on the golf team at Milton High School , which had featured future PGA Tour members Heath Slocum and Boo Weekley just before he attended. [6] Watson played golf for Faulkner State Community College in nearby Baldwin County , Alabama , where he was a junior college All-American . He transferred to the University of Georgia , the defending NCAA champions , and played for the Bulldogs in 2000 and 2001. As a junior, Watson helped lead the Bulldogs to the SEC title in 2000.

The thread is really not about BW, so I'll let it die here, I was just pointing out that almost every successful golfer, armature or pro,  has coaching in one form coaching or another.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem, I think, is that some people are going to read too deeply and think that they can reach that point on their own. I wish I had lessons as a kid because I spent years hacking and trying to make my own sense of bad shots. Bubba is definitely an anomaly that people should not try to emulate in terms of taking lessons.

Probably. And the problem with that is they may get close, but then they're often setting themselves up for more work "unlearning" the compensations they learned.

For example, someone might want to get to "low single digits." They get to an 8 on their own but no further, and then have such a goofy swing that it takes awhile to unlearn everything.

IMO it's not only possible that Bubba didn't have a high school or college coach that tried to coach his swing, but more than likely.

I think the point others are trying to make is that "coaching" takes other forms beyond "tried to coach his swing." Phil MIckelson's had two instructors, and his swing looks about the same now as it always has.


Bubba is a great example of a freak of nature kid who figured stuff out on his own and won two Masters. He's the exception to the rule.

Lessons are for people who want to get better, and more specifically, lessons are for people who will enjoy getting better more than they'll enjoy "figuring it out" on their own… because the latter often takes longer and offers no guarantees at all that they'll ever arrive.

At the end of the day, most golfers seem to enjoy golf just shooting 94 with their buddies, especially if they shoot more than 94. :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Bubba is an anomaly, I doubt any swing coach (except for putting work) would even consider taking Bubba on as a student because the potential to ruin him is too great.  You don't see many (if any) books teaching to swing like Bubba or to incorporate Furyk's loop.

If I was able to reach near scratch on my own, I wouldn't take a lesson either.  Unfortunately I started too late in life and without structured lessons and drills I'd probably never figure out how to swing a club properly on my own.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Lessons are for people who want to get better, and more specifically, lessons are for people who will enjoy getting better more than they'll enjoy "figuring it out" on their own… because the latter often takes longer and offers no guarantees at all that they'll ever arrive. At the end of the day, most golfers seem to enjoy golf just shooting 94 with their buddies, especially if they shoot more than 94. :)

:-D

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Bubba is an anomaly, I doubt any swing coach (except for putting work) would even consider taking Bubba on as a student because the potential to ruin him is too great.

I'm calling bogus on that one. Sorry. Only an instructor who didn't know what he was doing could ruin Bubba, and the only instructors who would not consider taking him on are the ones who are too busy and/or who are not confident in their skill set.

If Bubba took a lesson, it's the same as any other student: find his priority piece, and make it better.

FWIW, I'd teach Jim Furyk or Bubba Watson. The same day, too, why not? :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2017 TST Partners

    PING Golf
    Leupold Golf
    Snell Golf
    Talamore Golf Resort
    Lowest Score Wins
  • Posts

    • Thanks for your questions Swede. Regarding data for irons, if I understand what you are asking, the driver data can't really be correlated. Each iron would have it's own ideal launch conditions (launch angle, spin rate, ball speed) which would be based off of the player's swing speed.  The ball is designed to perform differently with longer clubs than shorter clubs, but if you can get dialed in with your driver, you'll be pretty close with the rest of the set also. The driver/shaft combo certainly affects the trajectory as well, and sometimes guys are playing the wrong ball and the wrong driver.  But what I see more often is a player who goes through the fitting process when purchasing a driver and irons, then they play whatever ball happens to be on sale.  It would be like using a different driver every time they played!  When trying to optimize trajectory, the ball is a good place to start.  Why buy a new driver when moving to a different ball can make the difference?  Sometimes the ball will help some, but to get where a player needs to be a different shaft or driver might be needed also. A lot of guys will go through a ball fitting whenever they get a new driver, which is not a bad idea.  Usually, if your previous driver fit properly and the new one fits properly, the ball will work just fine.  I usually suggest going through a ball fitting at least every-other-season just to make sure.  Sometimes our swings evolve...maybe your swing has improved or swing speed has increased, or it could be the other way, but it's good to make sure your stuff is correct.
    • To be clear, I have never talked about "the Titleist fitting." I don't know what they do to fit players. I'm simply talking about their recommendation to start at the green and work backward, but ultimately to consider all the shots you play in a round of golf, not just ones with the driver. I'm not talking about "here's two balls, try them out." I'm talking about the idea of "here are 30 kinds of golf ball. I eliminated a few because they felt horrible off my putter. I eliminated a few more for poor performance around the green. I eliminated some more for poor spin or flight with my irons. Of the six that I had left, these two performed well with my driver, so one of them is a good fit. If they have a super official "ball fitting" process, I wasn't talking about that, nor was I talking about a "here is a Pro V1 and a Pro V1x… hit some shots and pick one." So… I wish you hadn't devoted that much attention to the "Titleist method" in your post when that's not at all what I was asking. My point was… I'm skeptical that the Bridgestone method (only hitting a few balls, not doing much to account for consistent tee heights, ball position, players getting "warmed up" during the process, etc., only using the driver and disregarding the rest of the shots) is a great method, either.
    • 1. Golf is elitist. So far from true but I still get way too many people who chuckle at my interest in golf- as if I should be embarrassed that I enjoy such a snobby pastime.  2. Just swing your swing- and stop obsessing about getting a "pretty" swing. Sorry, but that's not sound advice - when I get rid of the key elements that are holding me back, yes, sure- then I'll make the most of what I've got. I'll swing that swing. Until then, not a chance, now that I have learned about the fundamentals . There's work to be done to make my future golf far more enjoyable and competitive.   3. Lessons are expensive. Nope- look hard enough and you can find quality swing guidance at a reasonable price.  I agree with lotsa others above but these resonate for me at my level of play right and interactions with people now. 
    • Let me address the things you mentioned and clarify a little bit, because I think there is some misconceptions on some of the aspects. There is perception that the Titleist fitting covers everything and the Bridgestone only addresses the driver.  One of the biggest issues I have with the Titleist method is it's not a real golf ball fitting.  They give you a Pro V1 2-ball pack and a Pro V1x 2-ball pack and basically tell you to hit some shots and see which one you like best. So regardless of swing speed, handicap, launch numbers or anything else, they are saying you can pick this ball or that ball.  The other models in Titleist's line are not included and competitor models are not included.  I know for a fact that there are many players who don't fit into either of those models, but Titleist doesn't offer other options or comparisons.  They claim the Pro V1 and Pro V1x have the best distance, best short game spin, best flight characteristics, softest feel and great durability.  I hate to tell everyone, but there is no such thing as a perfect golf ball.  The laws of physics and aerodynamics apply to Titleist just like everyone else.  A ball that is designed for high spin will not be as long as a lower spinning model and will tend to curve more, and a ball designed for distance will not have the same type of performance on approach shots and around the green. Titleist also doesn't offer any data that shows how those models stack-up for players, or how they perform compared to their ideal numbers.  Sure, people love the spin that they get around the green, but do they need that much spin?  Is all that spin hurting them in other areas?  High spin actually gets a lot of players in trouble and costs them more strokes than it saves them.  Similar to the Titleist method that has players go through the process on their own, after a Bridgestone tech works with a player and their driver and shows them the data, a 2-ball pack is given to the player to continue their testing on the course with irons and short game.  As far as the number of shots on the launch monitor is concerned, you are correct...typically 3 or 4 shots with each ball is recorded.  It's not a lot, but it's 6-8 more shots over a launch monitor than a Titleist fitting. Obviously it would be great to do more, but a fitting could easily stretch to an hour per player, so a typical 4-5 hour event we could only help a handful of players.  A normal fitting takes about 15 min, so that is 16-20 players per event.  At that number, the cost of each fitting was right around $40/player.  If an hour was spent with each player, it would cost almost $200/player which isn't cost effective. On the launch angle issue, what I said was there are many things that can affect the launch, including the ball.  I didn't say 2* wasn't possible and I didn't say in the example I posted that only 1/2* could be attributed to the ball.  Honestly, I can't say how much of that 2* is related to moving to a different model...even if other variables like tee height, ball position were removed, the difference in loft will vary from player-to-player due to different swing speeds, swing paths, angle of attack etc which is unique to everyone.  Plus depending on what model is used first and which model is recommended could have a smaller or larger affect than other combinations.  You could probably make the same case for every category if you wanted though, right?  You could say how much of the difference in spin was caused by the ball change and how much was the result of some other variable?  Spin is more important than the launch angle, so even if the l.a. stayed the same, the drop in spin would have made a nice difference by itself.  But we know the player was launching the ball too low with too much spin, a lower spinning/higher launching ball was recommended and the results were a more efficient trajectory and an increase in performance. I believe the key is to be able to show a player in black and white what their launch conditions are with their current ball and how it compares to their ideal numbers.  If you can't show a player the areas that need improvement, then how can you confidently recommend the best ball for them?  The truth is, most people are playing the wrong ball, so it's not that hard to make an improvement, and honestly there are probably a handful of different makes/models that would be better.    
    • 1-5. Putting matters most. Uh huh. What are the chances I gain 2 strokes because I (or just about any golfer) 4 putted? It's happened. Rarely. What are the chances I (or just about any golfer) hit an errant tee shot and blow 2 strokes? 40% every tee shot for me. 
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Blog Entries

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. Dragondrake
      Dragondrake
      (57 years old)
    2. Mistabigevil
      Mistabigevil
      (36 years old)
    3. Taylor56
      Taylor56
      (61 years old)
  • Get Great Gear with Amazon