Golf Instructors are Not Chemists

[iacas]

This will be an odd post to write, and I'm going to ask for some leeway in how you interpret it to give me the benefit of the doubt. This is not a rant, I'm not upset, and this is not aimed at anyone in particular. I, more than anyone else, am aware of my flaws and limitations, and unaware of much of what other people do, and I recognize that. I also stand by the work I've done here on TST, with my students, and with the various other things I've done over the years - training a hundred or so instructors in 5SK, writing a book and making a Lowest Score Wins DVD, the work, time, and energy I've put into traveling to work with experts in biomechanics and other hard sciences, the money I've spent getting "toys" and conducting my own research with them, and so on.

Give me a little benefit of the doubt that my mood in writing this is perhaps best described as "mildly disappointed but not at all surprised."

21 hours ago, Phil McGleno said:

@Marty2019 would you go to a chemist with a pet theory about why a chemical reaction occurs and argue with them when they show you proof?-Cuz that is kind of what you are doing here.

That post struck me as appropriate. It's in a thread where @Phil McGleno was responding to @Marty2019 re: Paul Wilson, how much you use your arms and wrists (and how) in the golf swing, etc. While I remain almost 100% convinced that @Marty2019 is "wrong" with his own theory about how he doesn't use his arms as more than connecting his body to the club… (while simultaneously understanding that if that's what he feels he's doing it's a completely different thing altogether)… he's not really going to a chemist and arguing with a pet theory over a chemical reaction.

This is true simply because there is no universally accepted truth in golf instruction like we have in basic chemistry. @Marty2019 could cite several other "chemists" that back his theory - "chemists" with years of experience, YouTube videos, DVDs perhaps, websites of their own, and thousands of students. Because there's no rigorous testing or scientific process to determine when someone is a "golf expert," golfers have to rely mostly on perception: does the person seem like they know what they're talking about?

Unfortunately, too often, that test fails, simply because it's pretty easy to fall into the trap of something that sounds logical. A charismatic instructor can make you believe a lot of things are true or beneficial when they are not.

Add in a dash of golfers who secretly hope to find "the secret" or "that one tip" that will put them over the top, and you have a recipe for disaster: a golfer who will spend time, money, and energy chasing the dream of finally being able to break 80, or par, or hit the ball 270 yards, or sink every putt they look at, or whatever…

What can I do about it? Not a whole lot, except to keep trying to hold myself to a high standard, and to educate as many people about the standard to which they should hold their instructor to as well. Golf is not in the age of chemistry, it's still - unfortunately - more like the days of alchemy.

[Lihu]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

Add in a dash of golfers who secretly hope to find "the secret" or "that one tip" that will put them over the top, and you have a recipe for disaster: a golfer who will spend time, money, and energy chasing the dream of finally being able to break 80<<a few times>>, or par, or hit the ball 270 <<260>> yards, or sink every putt they look at, or whatever…

What can I do about it? Not a whole lot, except to keep trying to hold myself to a high standard, and to educate as many people about the standard to which they should hold their instructor to as well. Golf is not in the age of chemistry, it's still - unfortunately - more like the days of alchemy.

47% isn't too bad!

When you write stuff like this it makes me feel like you don't feel you have any of the right answers, while in my personal experience you are almost always correct. You generally make assertions where you have at least some data to back them up.

This site and LSW are the most scientific (from and engineering perspective) things written about golf. I really like that you are taking data, figuring out why the data looks the way it does, then coming up with a hypothesis which you try to prove. It's pretty unique in golf.

Engineers and scientists all make mistakes, it doesn't mean their methodology is incorrect, it just means they have to try something else.

The more ideas I see that contradict this site, the more I appreciate what you have done for golf. Keep up this mode of thinking and stop casting doubt on your methodology.

Thanks for my families golf growth.

[Wally Fairway]

Reading this all that comes to mind is

 

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Lihu said:

When you write stuff like this it makes me feel like you don't feel you have any of the right answers, while in my personal experience you are almost always correct. You generally make assertions where you have at least some data to back them up.

I must have failed in my writing, then, as the point is that I'm one of the few who feels he has good answers, and backs up what he says with facts, and isn't just putting on a show or conning people or saying things that seem to make sense until you look at it more closely.

I feel I am closest to a "chemist" in golf, while a whole bunch of other instructors are very, very, very far from that. And it sucks because they can put up a good show, or con people, or "talk the talk" and trick people into spending their time, money, and energy chasing false dreams and bad information.

[Lihu]

Just now, iacas said:

I must have failed in my writing, then, as the point is that I'm one of the few who feels he has good answers, and backs up what he says with facts, and isn't just putting on a show or conning people or saying things that seem to make sense until you look at it more closely.

I feel I am closest to a "chemist" in golf, while a whole bunch of other instructors are very, very, very far from that. And it sucks because they can put up a good show, or con people, or "talk the talk" and trick people into spending their time, money, and energy chasing false dreams and bad information.

So true.

Some people are better at engineering things and some are better at selling things. The hope is that the people who are good at selling things are selling the right products.

This is very typical of a marketing and engineering discussion. That is, typically engineering needs to educate the marketing folks on what's correct before they start selling it.

Very frustrating indeed.

[Big Lex]

Are you trying to make a point different from the one you made in your blog (I think) regarding how a falling tide sinks all ships?

I am pleased that you made this post. I like that you are acknowledging that there is "no universally accepted truth in golf instruction." We know what some of the universal truths are in the swing (weight forward, etc.), but there is no universal truth regarding how a person best learns (or can be taught) how to produce these universal truths in his or her own swing.

It's a pretty difficult thing to figure out, particularly if you want proof on the level of science or mathematics. There are simply too many variables to consider, too many interactions between different variables.

I think golf instruction is scientific, but it isn't strictly a science. There is a good deal of art to it.

We have been trying in my institution to hire a physician to run a very important arm of our oncology program. We've had very good candidates that we have rejected because someone thought they did not have the right personality or temperament for the job. So medical knowledge can only take you so far....it is of no use if the patient won't do the things you say or come to see you.

I find it very challenging to teach academic things, such as in my job. When I first tried teaching, I was very enthusiastic. I love my job, and I loved "sharing my knowledge" with students. But not everyone responds. Some people don't listen to you. Others listen, but they don't hear the important things, or can't sort or process the information. Often, what seems so clear in my mind will come out, verbally, as quite confusing. Sometimes, I give too much information, sometimes the wrong information. It's not nearly as easy as it seems when you first try it.

I think the great thing about what you and Dave Wedzik are doing is exactly the spirit of your post. You care about the process. You are not in you own worlds, absorbed in your private theories, seeking celebrity clients, etc. You are trying to teach golf, and are going about it in an empirical way. You define the problem, hypothesize a solution, and then test the hypothesis. This isn't easy to do in the best of controlled, scientific, situations, let alone in a golf studio. But at least you are doing it the right way.

 

[Big Lex]

16 minutes ago, iacas said:

....a whole bunch of other instructors are very, very, very far from that. And it sucks because they can put up a good show, or con people, or "talk the talk" and trick people into spending their time, money, and energy chasing false dreams and bad information.

Another thought....

This is a battle that is hard to win. As Mark Twain said, "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting its shoes on."

Once a high profile teacher says something that gets repeated, it becomes accepted as fact. Even if its bullshit. And it becomes very hard to change that perception.

You certainly don't have that problem here. I think most people on this site believe you....Sand Trap readers don't need convincing, in general.

I heard Barney Adams on Morning Drive a few weeks ago talk about the key to success with golf products: It's getting your product seen on TV by the most people possible, which is accomplished by huge amounts of advertising, and/or getting the product in the hands on the top professionals and having them use it when playing on TV.

I'm sure he's right about selling things, as he has the track record to back it up.

If what he says also applies to instruction, then what you need to do is begin teaching tour players. The fastest way to convince the greatest number of people that you are the closest thing to a golf chemist is to begin teaching a high profile tour player.

My guess is you've already thought this. I would love to see you working with a tour player.

 

[iacas]

25 minutes ago, Big Lex said:

Are you trying to make a point different from the one you made in your blog (I think) regarding how a falling tide sinks all ships?

A bit.

25 minutes ago, Big Lex said:

I find it very challenging to teach academic things, such as in my job. When I first tried teaching, I was very enthusiastic. I love my job, and I loved "sharing my knowledge" with students. But not everyone responds. Some people don't listen to you. Others listen, but they don't hear the important things, or can't sort or process the information. Often, what seems so clear in my mind will come out, verbally, as quite confusing. Sometimes, I give too much information, sometimes the wrong information. It's not nearly as easy as it seems when you first try it.

FWIW, the OP was talking mostly about the informational side, not necessarily the "how to communicate it" side, or the artistic side. That's important, perhaps equally or even more so, but it wasn't really the topic. You can have lousy instructors with bad information who convey it convincingly. They often succeed as instructors by some measures while failing miserably by others.

25 minutes ago, Big Lex said:

I think the great thing about what you and Dave Wedzik are doing is exactly the spirit of your post. You care about the process. You are not in you own worlds, absorbed in your private theories, seeking celebrity clients, etc. You are trying to teach golf, and are going about it in an empirical way. You define the problem, hypothesize a solution, and then test the hypothesis. This isn't easy to do in the best of controlled, scientific, situations, let alone in a golf studio. But at least you are doing it the right way.

We try. Constantly. And a big part of that is that we're two of the most skeptical guys you'll ever meet, and we try to tear everything down before we even begin to accept it as truth. We may lean one way or the other from the start, and some ideas may have a higher bar to clear, but no ideas are just accepted.

5 minutes ago, Big Lex said:

Once a high profile teacher says something that gets repeated, it becomes accepted as fact. Even if its bullshit. And it becomes very hard to change that perception.

We see it time and time again. Even with the simple things and a hundred people all calling "bullshit."

Like the importance of putting. Or ball flight laws. Or "releasing the club" or what have you.

5 minutes ago, Big Lex said:

You certainly don't have that problem here. I think most people on this site believe you....Sand Trap readers don't need convincing, in general.

It happens plenty often, and the downside is that it often scares people off. People often seem to have an emotional attachment to information that I just don't understand.

5 minutes ago, Big Lex said:

If what he says also applies to instruction, then what you need to do is begin teaching tour players. The fastest way to convince the greatest number of people that you are the closest thing to a golf chemist is to begin teaching a high profile tour player.

My guess is you've already thought this. I would love to see you working with a tour player.

We have worked with Tour players. It's not really what we want to do.

We have also had the best-selling golf instructional DVD on the market for about four years now (5SK). We hope to replace that with another of our own DVDs with LSW. 30+ instructors are teaching LSW classes with more coming on board each week. We just shipped hundreds of books to Europe.

We're doing fine and in no big rush to grow. And we're not in any kind of rush to teach a Tour player.

[divot dave]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

...Unfortunately, too often, that test fails, simply because it's pretty easy to fall into the trap of something that sounds logical. A charismatic instructor can make you believe a lot of things are true or beneficial when they are not....

straight church... this is true on so many levels. 

[Big Lex]

4 minutes ago, iacas said:

FWIW, the OP was talking mostly about the informational side, not necessarily the "how to communicate it" side, or the artistic side. That's important, perhaps equally or even more so, but it wasn't really the topic. You can have lousy instructors with bad information who convey it convincingly. They often succeed as instructors by some measures while failing miserably by others....People often seem to have an emotional attachment to information that I just don't understand.

I assumed you considered your 5 keys to be essential truths. I guess they are not universally accepted, but they are close to that, at least some of them are. But my comment would remain the same....meaning I applaud you guys for understanding that your methods are not universally accepted truth. I think you would also agree that you would discard any and all of your 5 keys if one day you discovered they were not valid.

Regarding the last sentence....people are emotional creatures, and we can't really control the feelings we get. People may not be emotionally attached to the information per se, but they become offended or react defensively when something they believe in or have accepted as part of themselves is threatened.

FWIW, I think Benjamin Franklin and Harvey Penick had great things to say about this topic. Penick said (paraphrasing) "never contradict a pupil and follow it up with positive assertions of my own." Franklin wrote about being "deferential" to people who had less knowledge or education than he. In both examples, they are talking about how to persuade people to think about something in a certain way or do something differently, without making them feel assaulted regarding their beliefs. In other words, people don't generally react favorably to being told point blank that they are wrong, not if the goal is to change their thinking or behavior. People are much more likely to change a behavior or think differently if they believe they had a role in discovering what was wrong or defining what needs to be changed.

[nevets88]

3 hours ago, iacas said:

Because there's no rigorous testing or scientific process to determine when someone is a "golf expert," golfers have to rely mostly on perception: does the person seem like they know what they're talking about?

Unfortunately, too often, that test fails, simply because it's pretty easy to fall into the trap of something that sounds logical. A charismatic instructor can make you believe a lot of things are true or beneficial when they are not.

In another discussion board, they're sort of talking about these issues, but w/regards to one example. This guy (My Swing Evolution - Hogan Code), it's hard to tell if he's really legitimate or not. While he's never played any organized golf or studied under any well known master instructors, he is teaching a Hogan like swing, selling dvds and seems to have a following. How is a beginning golfer who doesn't know the lay of golf instruction land supposed to size this guy up? It's really a confusing mess for people to try and figure out how to find quality instruction.

[bubble]

I'm sorry I dont really understand all of this.

Yet I feel there are rarely bad instructions but often many many poor students.

I'm one of the poor students.

I changed golf instructors once to have the same version again and said to myself "Really, I still have not even achieved 1% of what I was asked and that I paid to know.

This was my benefit of changing pro instructor. A big "weak up dude" slap in my face. 

Another benefit was having different words for basically the same thing. That helped after digestion of the big "weak up dude" slap in my face.

 

I think Golf is very kinesthesic sort of thing and feeling is often described yet undescriptable, versus the static positions that are very imagery and factual...things like that. Image is easy, getting the feel to the image is not.

example I guy says "move your hips like a pro" but that is purely impossible to meet movement with those words.

A hip will move as a reaction to leg work or other etc. you just can't move hips alone, it's physical, hips dont have muscle or ground attachement without considering 150++ other features in you body and outer ody traction of WTF you have in hand, then add gyroscopic mouvement, circular trajectory, etc etc.

"move your hips" : So this is a very very stupid and very very wise thing to say.

Yet I dont think it is possible to say : move your hips by using a 1/4 pound right foot pressure versus a 1/2 kilo counterbalance of left arm down mouvement pulling 5 pounds (PW) or 8 pounds (4 irons) that each become 75 pounds just about if a 80 mph club swing exist at 1/4 DS and 95 mph at impact yet only if the arm is a minimum flat and shoulder mouvement is minimum over the top by letting your back 10° to the target line and tens your abdominal to carry 2 dozen eggs etc.. buy the way keep your wrist armed until release only of the right wrist, you will feel the thing, dont even think about this...

It is possible though to say a bunch of things in chemistry. Yet a lot can be right as well until proved very wrong.

 

Edited March 11, 2016 by bubble

[Buckeyebowman]

Interesting thread. I'm new to this site and still learning my way around. There is just a ton of content here, and I'm feeling my way along slowly. I signed up for the forum because I want to improve my game. Being 63 and having played for 50 years, I have some ideas about the swing, but understand that I don't know everything.

Consider how many different swing styles have been taught in just the time that I have been playing! We've had turn under a pane of glass, swing in a barrel, hit against a firm left side, the reverse "C" finish, flat swings, uprights swings, strong grips, weak grips, and God knows what else! Anything that one instructor has ever said, has been contradicted by another instructor. Is it any wonder that some golfers are confused?

If you are an instructor in a subjective art, and you're seeking to be a "chemist" ( I understand that you may not be, but that is the terminology that has been employed), you must understand that you, and those like you, come accompanied by probably a half dozen "alchemists" seeking to turn lead into gold through the use of hokum and magic incantations! Sometimes it hard for us to separate the wheat from the chaff, and doubt kind of comes along with the territory.

I am impressed with the amount of support material you provide to support your positions. It takes some patience to read through them all, and I suspect some folks just don't have that. They resort to the knee jerk reaction. Or a preconditioned mind set. I don't know if you're familiar with the sitcom "Big Bang Theory". It involves a group of nerdy scientists (chemists?), and their interactions with regular people (students?). In one episode the girl next door is dating a big, hunky, dumbbell! He sits down to talk "science" with the nerds because, as he puts it, "That's what I love about science. There's no one right answer!"

And so it is with golf. I've played with guys who were hacking and gouging their way around the course while I was playing fairly well. Sometimes one of them would ask me why they were slicing the ball so badly. I'd tell them and would be immediately informed that I had no idea what I was talking about! Uhhhh, OK!

So, just keep soldiering on. Know that the majority of members here appreciate your efforts, and let the doubters be doubters. You're a golf instructor, not a psychologist!

[70sSanO]

I only had a couple of instructors, but I would like to find one to tweak a few things.  My perception, right or wrong, is that  instructors think of themselves as chemists.  As already pointed out, look at how many different swing styles there have been to choose from.  And if you want to base it purely on results, Golf My Way should be flying off the shelves.

In most hand-eye skill sports, the participant shows up for lessons with any number of deficiencies, physical or otherwise.  He or she also shows up with a perception to achieve of a level of success.  Some people just want to hit it in the air and in the fairway.  In my mind, right or wrong, an instructor should evaluate what the person brings to the table and makes adjustments to maximize the success that person is looking for.  It should not be a one size fits all, or a scientific secret formula that can be applied to everyone.

This goes beyond just golf, I see it in a lot of sports.  There is this stepford approach that everyone does it a certain way.  Then someone comes along with a lot of talent and an unorthodox approach and dominates the sport and that becomes the new way to do things.

John

Edited May 11, 2016 by 70sSanO

[Rainmaker]

Maybe the chemist analogy wasn't the best one - a better one might be found in my particular world, lol.  I'm a business/technical consultant and I'm highly specialized in a certain kind of software.  One of the things I do frequently is train client developers to program in this software.  I've spent almost 20 years programming in this software - that's why they hired me.  And yet - they don't believe what I'm telling them, lol.  There are lessons and concepts that just take years to really learn - like the true cost of ownership of custom software, the long-term implications of various design choices (ie - wrong ones).  

Anyway, the point is, I feel like my golf teacher half the time, lol.  I've been doing this forever, you saw my resume and chose to hire me, I built all this crap for you and am now training you on the very crap I just finished building . . and yet you don't believe me with regard to what is relevant in our training and want to challenge me on stupid stuff.   This only makes it take longer.  Ok - now I'm ranting, lol. 

 

 

 

Edited May 15, 2016 by Rainmaker

[Hiway1tele]

My experience with instruction has been a total waste of time...two independant pro teachers, neither of who could teach anything to a beginner...3 diff coaches at GolfTec, two of which couldnt figure out how to teach a basic swing to a beginner, The 3rd who is the mgr of the facility, finally taught me the basic of the swing..so effectively 1 out 4 instructors had teh ability to teach a 30 hcp player how to have a basic swing thats repeatable and advances to the hole...It always amazes me how many so-called instructors will promise high hcp players with no ability all this improvement, take thier money, and at the end, teh player basically gets nothing from it....sports instruction in my opinion is one of teh biggest con games there is...

[Patch]

You can't place all the blame on the instructor. The student has some responsibility for failures also.

Granted some instructors are too full of themselves to make the extra effort to insure a positive learning process. The old my way or the highway scenario. However some students probably do not know how learn from instruction. Their ego gets in the way too. 

I'd say 60/40 or maybe 70/30 with the instructor having the most responsibility in the process. The instructor has seen more students than the student has seen instructors. 

[Hiway1tele]

Sorry, Patch..Good teachers find ways to reach students...the 4th teacher found the way to explain the swing layers and function so I could understand how to learn it...its the teachers job to figure out how to teach it to teh student they are teaching...in my case, 75% of them failed at that...and I practiced every day what I was being taught...