There are more bad Club Pros than good

[Lihu]

On 12/14/2016 at 11:58 PM, JustJack2016 said:

Uhmmm...I believe putting a percentage on something based on your personal experience is the epitome of a made up statistic.  You state there's no objective way to measure whether someone is "good" or "bad", yet somehow you're managing to categorize 90 percent of your brethren as bad.  Do you even know 10 percent of PGA certified teaching pros?  

Well...I honestly don't care if you side with me or not.  I agree...there are a lot of the same answers; however, none of the others addressed me specifically to tell me MY OPINION is wrong.  For some reason, you seem to believe you're the only one entitled to an opinion.  I have news for you...even though I'm a newbie, I'm quite confident we both will have others not sharing our perspectives...I'm okay with that.  Are you?  For what it's worth, when you have no data to back up your claim, your opinion is just that--your opinion.  Making up numbers in an attempt to support your story doesn’t make you look smart.

It was more of a facetious comment than mockery.  You tell me I'm missing something because I'm new to this site and you didn't want to repeat all of the things you said in previous threads.  I understand what you're saying.  Then you summed up your entire philosophy into two blurbs.  **drumroll**  What was it again?  The vast majority of bad instruction is caused by bad instructors.  Or something like that.  It's part humorous and part sad.  Part of me wanted to delve into the depths of your words, but my frontal cortex pulled me back and validated there wasn't anything there.  It's like having the news on as background noise and then hearing a segment about a grown man who drowned in three feet of water.  When you rewind the broadcast and pay attention to the entire story, you still don't know if the words you're hearing are actually coming out of someone's mouth.  What?  He drowned in three feet of water...and he died right next to his swimming instructor who tried everything imaginable to save him.  He yelled, "STAND UP!!", "GET ON YOUR FEET!!", "BEND YOUR KNEES", "STRAIGHTEN YOUR LEFT ARM!!", ...everything he could think of, but the water created a communication barrier between them.

Again...I didn't say golfers should blame.  In my scenario, I said the opposite.

In conclusion, I have to say none of my old opinions have changed...but, I'm now the owner of a brand new opinion:  I'm starting to believe the number one problem in American golf is that the PGA feels unknowledgeable and unqualified golfers should act as their surrogate lynchmen.  It seems as though there is a movement to create chaos and distrust of the club pro in an effort to eradicate "them" (the bad people) in an effort to make the average Joe come to "us" (the good people)?  Okay...eradicate was the wrong word--I'm sure a few of "them" might successfully convert to some of "us".  Regardless, it seems as though the average Joe is being used to identify and subsequently eliminate the bad apples because the PGA has no idea (or lacks the necessary courage) when it comes to regulating the instructors they sent out to instruct The People.  This resonates...historically speaking...and it sounds a lot like the Pope covering up for pedophilic priests as opposed to taking effective corrective actions.  Uncanny...

There is one question that might answer your own question. Do you think everyone taking lots of lessons who are still playing golf is playing at their best possible skill level?

I am pretty confident that your answer will be no.

So, what is the cause of people who take frequent lessons not improving?

Is it the student not understanding what was taught at each lesson? If the student is not understanding what was taught, is that the students fault? If so why? Because it seems like it's the instructors responsibility to communicate what is needed for the student to improve?

Is it lack of practice? or is it the wrong type of practice? If it's the wrong type of practice, it seems like the instructor has failed to give specific instructions to the person to improve. If it is lack of practice, then the frequency of the lessons (maybe twice a week) would allow the student to improve by default?

I know many people who go to bad instructors twice a week and never improve. I know people who practice every single day and never improve. I know people who take lessons weekly and practice daily and never improve. If you saw their dedication to the sport, you would really feel bad for them struggling so hard and never improving. I'm not going to say that they don't practice enough, because they do. They just got bad instruction.

Whether you think there are 90% bad instructors or 10% bad instructors is only relevant because most people struggle to improve in golf and don't.

If they all got good instruction, then statistically, there would be many more good players out there and there simply aren't enough good players to back up the 10% bad instructors hypothesis.

It just kind of "feels" like the 90% bad instruction hypothesis is more plausible.

[Kalnoky]

5 minutes ago, Lihu said:

I know people who practice every single day and never improve. I know people who take lessons weekly and practice daily and never improve. If you saw their dedication to the sport, you would really feel bad for them struggling so hard and never improving. I'm not going to say that they don't practice enough, because they do. They just got bad instruction.

 

Man, that's sobering. 

I think it's the same impedance I see in business every day - poor communication skills.  That, and technicians running businesses. Technicians are lousy businessmen, and businessmen are lousy technicians. Why should golf be any different.

[Lihu]

5 minutes ago, Kalnoky said:

Man, that's sobering. 

I think it's the same impedance I see in business every day - poor communication skills.  That, and technicians running businesses. Technicians are lousy businessmen, and businessmen are lousy technicians. Why should golf be any different.

Exactly.

Statistically speaking from the gut, your statements are likely to be true. Can we prove them? Probably not, but I can pretty much find a whole bunch of supporting examples versus one or two counter examples.

The average official handicap at 14.7 doesn't really support the mostly good golf instructors theory.

[Hacker James]

I can honestly say that I can attribute to where I am today the fact that I have never had an actual lesson.

Edited December 17, 2016 by Hacker James

[mvmac]

4 hours ago, JustJack2016 said:

Maybe you should start a new thread outling all of the characteristics of a "natural" golf swing.  Evertime I heard someone say, "the kid's a natural", it was quickly followed by eight years of lessons to prepare him/her for college.

"Naturally", you wouldn't pair a kid like that with any hack.  Junior has the $1,000 per hour natural talent.

At that level, sometimes there is success and sometimes the kid isn't willing to work hard enough...after all, they bypassed the bad instructors.

Your response has nothing to do with what I posted. I'm done wasting my time with you.

[JustJack2016]

I believe this is on-topic, so I'll ask a serious question regarding "real" teaching pros versus "club" pros.  If you're a teaching pro as well as a college coach...at what point is the instruction deemed a success?  If a teaching professional has 16 months with relatively young golfers (who, studies show, learn quicker and have better hand-eye coordination compared to elder students in many activities), shouldn't there be a marked (or noticeable) improvement with students in that age group?  In other words, maybe it isn't a matter of skill versus no skill...maybe it's possible we don't give the club pro enough time to elevate our game?

[Hatchman]

7 hours ago, JustJack2016 said:

I believe this is on-topic, so I'll ask a serious question regarding "real" teaching pros versus "club" pros.  If you're a teaching pro as well as a college coach...at what point is the instruction deemed a success?  If a teaching professional has 16 months with relatively young golfers (who, studies show, learn quicker and have better hand-eye coordination compared to elder students in many activities), shouldn't there be a marked (or noticeable) improvement with students in that age group?  In other words, maybe it isn't a matter of skill versus no skill...maybe it's possible we don't give the club pro enough time to elevate our game?

I like what you've said here.  My thoughts might be by adding a teaching pro and NCAA winning college coach to a resume would catch my eye.  My club fitter has these credentials that I appreciate, and have good discussion about things.  The input and subsequent output objectives I pre-state to an instructor could simply be determined by measurable and observed results like increasing my gap wedge rev's.  

 These younger more coordinated golfers do have an advantage and can benefit from instruction.  Case in point, the PGA Pro and Club Pro, who I mentioned earlier, really does like to lean on his 6i mostly, I felt just wasn't assertive enough (or timely) explaining to me what action caused the undesired result for my method of learning.   Or how should I change it?   Nothing personal but we moved on.   We still do things together, just course and club things, not swing things.  Now, this same intstructor working with a very young student during this time period, helped qualify him for the tv appearance on the Master's Drive Putt & Chip contest, as a regional winner.  He's done good things to many others.  

 

 

 

Edited December 17, 2016 by Hatchman

[phillyk]

12 hours ago, JustJack2016 said:

I believe this is on-topic, so I'll ask a serious question regarding "real" teaching pros versus "club" pros.  If you're a teaching pro as well as a college coach...at what point is the instruction deemed a success?  If a teaching professional has 16 months with relatively young golfers (who, studies show, learn quicker and have better hand-eye coordination compared to elder students in many activities), shouldn't there be a marked (or noticeable) improvement with students in that age group?  In other words, maybe it isn't a matter of skill versus no skill...maybe it's possible we don't give the club pro enough time to elevate our game?

You're misunderstanding/underestimating the difference between club pro and teaching pro.  A club pro may put instruction last on his to do list with his job.  A teaching pro is just teaching, nothing else.  Meaning, club pros may not dedicate time to learn more on the swing and how to effectively teach.  They just teach to get extra income.  They may have good knowledge. But if you can't convey that information to your students effectively, then they need to learn how. And like I said, that may be last on their to do list.

When you're buying a lesson, do you want to walk away feeling you learned something and know how to duplicate it on your own or do you want to walk away feeling like you didn't get much but may get something with "time" and buying a few more lessons?  That first lesson, as a teacher, you have one chance to make a difference.  If the pro needs extra time to teach you effectively, then they need to learn how to teach better.

[JustJack2016]

4 hours ago, Hatchman said:

The input and subsequent output objectives I pre-state to an instructor could simply be determined by measurable and observed results...  

Case in point, the PGA Pro and Club Pro, who I mentioned earlier, really does like to lean on his 6i mostly, I felt just wasn't assertive enough (or timely) explaining to me what action caused the undesired result for my method of learning.

Measureable and observable...ABSOLUTELY!  If a person went in with a specific thing they wanted to work on, it sure would cut through the bologna.  When a person has been playing for a while (especially with someone they've formed an instructor/student relationship), it could be a matter of a minor tweak.  Regardless...they know the starting point and a desired result.  Unfortunately, if there isn't a bond or if the student isn't at "THAT" level (whatever "THAT" is), the instructor might say something like, "that's a great goal; however, before we try to tackle THAT, we really need you doing THIS...and here's why..."  Uh oh...decision time **has he convinced me of THIS or is he trying to reinvent the wheel?  Dude might be trying to soak me for another seriers...etc.**  Or whatever goes through a person's head.  

I'll take your word regarding the instructor who walked around with a club in his hand.  If he didn't fit your learning style, that's all that should matter (to you).  In these parts, we had an old guy who kind of just sat there and provided BASIC inputs here and there, but people seemed to love him  **trying to think of his name...Harvey Sumthin O'Ruther**  LOL. "Don't judge a book by it's cover..." I believe they say.

EXCELLENT POINTS...and I'm only saying that because I agree **LOL...as I fail to keep this succinct**

[JustJack2016]

25 minutes ago, phillyk said:

You're misunderstanding/underestimating the difference between club pro and teaching pro.  A club pro MAY (edited) put instruction last on his to do list with his job.  A teaching pro is just teaching, nothing else.  Meaning, club pros MAY NOT (edited...key words) dedicate time to learn more on the swing and how to effectively teach.  

They just teach to get extra income.

I believe I have a pretty good grasp of the duties and responsibilities of both jobs.  However, it's a matter of perspective.  Did you know there are tour playing professionals who have been exposed to the best teachers in the world...have a phenomenol grasp of swing mechanics...and can also instruct at a high level?  Likewise, there are some with the same background and knowledge who cannot impart that knowledge?  The difference, in my opinion, is their ability to connect and communicate with their student.  Their ability to show **physically** and feel **mentally and physically** the things they need the student to understand.  Did you also know there are people with one arm...maybe one leg...who are also great golf instructors?  There are people who hold other jobs (outside of golf)...that are great players/instructors?  I'm sure you've at least heard of a rumor or two.

Be that as it may, why is it a matter of perspective?  Because a teaching pro MAY also have all of their teaching slots filled.  When your half-hour, 45 minutes, hour, or three hours are up...out the door you go.  Yes, teaching MIGHT be their only job, but why do you feel they MAY be there only for you?  Club pros do instruct for extra money...but for SOME teaching pros, that's their sole source of income.  While a club pro definitely has other duties throughout their day, they MAY be able to extend the lesson rather than chop it off.  Naturally, the schedule is going to dictate availability FOR BOTH instructors.  For most of my life I've been a member of smaller golf couses and only briefly was a member of a large club.  To be honest, I didn't care much for the big club...it was EXTREMELY business-like; however, the pro there rarely taught.  Those duties were handed down to a couple of people on the staff as well as a couple of people who had permission to use the facilities.  I don't know if there was a profit cut or if they were relatives, but they were there and they did a fine job.  One of the guys I thought the most about was an engineer who taught here and there.

I will agree with you that it's nice to have somebody putting in the time with you not being rushed), but "who" that may be varies from situation to situation.

[Hatchman]

So true @JustJack2016 where S has bond with I, or S is beginner seeking I, or S seeks I for specific work, etc.  "I" must then be able to assess S.  

At my developmental stage, S seeks I for continued development.  Outside comments ok, to some degree, if you get me.   Club Pro, PGA Pro, Online Pro fine by me.

[JustJack2016]

10 minutes ago, Hatchman said:

So true @JustJack2016 where S has bond with I, or S is beginner seeking I, or S seeks I for specific work, etc.  "I" must then be able to assess S.

If I would have seen it layed out like this earlier in my life, I would have scored higher on my SAT!

Yes..situational.