FORE! How is your golf game coming?

[Lauren]

Intermediate to advanced students should always talk with an instructor first and find out their philosophy regarding the swing.

Curious...what do you mean by "philosophy regarding swing"? If someone asked me "what's your philosophy regarding the swing?" I'd have no idea how to answer. I'm also more of a beginner than intermediate golfer...so maybe I just haven't developed a philosophy. Wondering if you elaborate on what type of answers you could expect to hear?

 

[locknload]

Curious...what do you mean by "philosophy regarding swing"? If someone asked me "what's your philosophy regarding the swing?" I'd have no idea how to answer. I'm also more of a beginner than intermediate golfer...so maybe I just haven't developed a philosophy. Wondering if you elaborate on what type of answers you could expect to hear?

I'm going to guess it has to do with the instructors philosophy of how to build a good golf swing. Every competent instructor is going to agree that you have to have a sound grip, setup, alignment and have to achieve some reasonable positions in the swing to allow it to generate some speed with a square face; however, instructors have a wide range of ideas about how to teach the student the right "feel" and method to repeat it. I've probably worked with 7 to 10 instructors over my decade playing the game and they all had a different approach...some worked for me and some didn't. I didn't know enough when I first started to know what I needed, but as times has gone and my swing has improved...I have much more knowledge of swing and what I need based on what I'm still struggling with.

The other thing I would say (I take this approach in skiing too), I want instruction from people who can do the thing well that I want to do. If the instructor has a swing that appeals and can explain how he or she achieves that...they are good candidate to teach you. Of course, this isn't always the case....having a good swing and knowing how you got there can be very different.. Some people have amazing swings and you ask them what they are doing and they say "I don't now..I just swing it". Lol. Not all of us are so lucky.

 

[salvatore]

Sure...

The first obvious thing that comes to mind would be to understand that philosophies come and go, and can represent major changes within the teaching profession. Think of the names of the famous teachers we all may have (or maybe not) heard: Toski, Leadbetter, Harmon, Haney, McClean, Kostis, Rotella (I'll include him because the mental side is so important), Ballard, etc. They each have their own unique "fingerprint," i.e., philosophy. They work for some, not for others, but they all have their disciples.

One particular philosophy that comes to mind would be "stack and tilt." Some people love it, some hate it. There's "connection," or whatever Jimmy Ballard used to call it. Moe Norman advocated something along those lines. These represent massive changes in the swing.

But it could be less dramatic. It could be about swing plane. Some instructors believe in a flatter swing plane where there is a lot of rotation. Others prefer the hands to stay more centered on the chest. Others feel the swing has two planes (one for the spine and one for the hands/arms).

Some might advocate a shallow angle of attack, picking or slightly trapping the ball. Others something steeper, whereas you are really driving the ball into the ground.

Some might want everyone to have a strong grip with active hands, most likely working the ball right-left. Others favor a neutral grip and aren't afraid of hitting a fade.

Where should the club be (when viewed from behind and on the target line) when you take it back and reach 3 o'clock? Should the clubhead be even with the hands? Inside? Outside? [This is an important factor for me.]

How about the swing overall? Is there one swing for irons and woods, always the same? Or is there in fact two swings: one for the driver and one for the rest?

This is why I made sure to write "intermediate to advanced." I wouldn't expect a beginner to know the nuances of the swing, and I believe at the early stages the key factor is to learn the basic fundamentals. As you progress, however, it is vital to understand there are many ways to swing the club, and you need to find what works for you and your physical attributes/limitations.

Also, and I want to add this, instructors need to find what works for them and what they believe. Despite the fact I know players who have had great success with stack-and-tilt, for example. I would never teach that. If you came to me, therefore, with an interest in learning that particular philosophy it wouldn't go very well. I'd send you to someone else. It would be the same for any number of things with which I don't personally believe. There are things that can be changed for the individual, but not at the sake of foregoing everything I believe about the swing.

 

[salvatore]

The other thing I would say (I take this approach in skiing too), I want instruction from people who can do the thing well that I want to do. If the instructor has a swing that appeals and can explain how he or she achieves that...they are good candidate to teach you. Of course, this isn't always the case....having a good swing and knowing how you got there can be very different.. Some people have amazing swings and you ask them what they are doing and they say "I don't now..I just swing it". Lol. Not all of us are so lucky.

I have to disagree because "doing" and "teaching" are different things, right? I remember sitting on the range at a Senior PGA Tournament, many years ago, and listening to a well-known guy who had won many PGA and Senior PGA events talking about the mechanics of the golf swing. He was ABSOLUTELY clueless. He was spouting off complete gibberish! He didn't know the first thing about the swing.

But... damn, could he hit a golf ball.

 

[Andy Mink]

He didn't know the first thing about the swing.

Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Yes, I know that's a broad brush.

 

[salvatore]

Sure...

The first obvious thing that comes to mind would be to understand

I should have followed this with something more basic, I think, and this is good:

how to build a good golf swing

 

[MissySki]

Tricia's coach basically said, "You are paying me, if you Youtube instruction, we are done here."

That seems a bit much to me.. I appreciate an instructor who wants to work together and doesn’t consider themselves the only source of truth. For example, I do an adult seasonal ski program. There is one instructor in particular that I enjoy very much, not just because she is an amazing instructor and person.. but our interactions are an exchange and a give and take. I often watch Deb Armstrong videos and so does she, and we will discuss certain topics of interest as a focus for the day or just in general on the chair lift. She has said she likes that I do that as it provides input to the focus on some days versus just her dictating it always, and it leads to very fun and conditions of the day learnings when they match up. She feels the more the student is interacting this way, the more they also get out of the lesson, and I agree because it keeps me very engaged.

Perhaps it is not a totally apples to apples comparison given I am a much more accomplished skier than golfer.. so I can also participate in those conversations at a higher level and take tidbits from videos more appropriately to work on what I want to. But still.. I appreciate her enthusiasm and encouragement to bring forth topics of interest and to take things from amazing instructors online to share and discuss and work on together. I’m not sure I’d mesh well as a student with someone who expects me to put blinders on for anything outside of their teaching. I’m a very analytical person, I like to research and watch things and then ask questions in person with my instructors.

 

[Tricia]

Exactly. A good instructor is always seeking out the "root problem." Fixing the most obvious issue is usually just applying a band-aid, and not addressing the underlying condition.

What this translates for me and my style of instruction is that more often than not it all comes back to setup. Grip, stance, posture, alignment.

Heck... I could probably stop the list at "grip!"

[Which is so agonizingly hard to swallow because a grip change, while the most uncomfortable change to make, is also the easiest.]

I would totally take a lesson from you!

 

[Tricia]

That seems a bit much to me.. I appreciate an instructor who wants to work together and doesn’t consider themselves the only source of truth. For example, I do an adult seasonal ski program. There is one instructor in particular that I enjoy very much, not just because she is an amazing instructor and person.. but our interactions are an exchange and a give and take. I often watch Deb Armstrong videos and so does she, and we will discuss certain topics of interest as a focus for the day or just in general on the chair lift. She has said she likes that I do that as it provides input to the focus on some days versus just her dictating it always, and it leads to very fun and conditions of the day learnings when they match up. She feels the more the student is interacting this way, the more they also get out of the lesson, and I agree because it keeps me very engaged.

Perhaps it is not a totally apples to apples comparison given I am a much more accomplished skier than golfer.. so I can also participate in those conversations at a higher level and take tidbits from videos more appropriately to work on what I want to. But still.. I appreciate her enthusiasm and encouragement to bring forth topics of interest and to take things from amazing instructors online to share and discuss and work on together. I’m not sure I’d mesh well as a student with someone who expects me to put blinders on for anything outside of their teaching. I’m a very analytical person, I like to research and watch things and then ask questions in person with my instructors.

He didn't actually say it like Phil said, but more like, "you're paying me for instruction and things on youtube can make that difficult, so please avoid youtube while we're working together."
I respect that.

I also told him about a few youtube videos that have reinforced a different way of me looking at something but in the same manner. He was appreciative of that.

 

[FlyingAce]

He didn't actually say it like Phil said, but more like, "you're paying me for instruction and things on youtube can make that difficult, so please avoid youtube while we're working together."
I respect that.

I also told him about a few youtube videos that have reinforced a different way of me looking at something but in the same manner. He was appreciative of that.

That’s like my husband asking his patients to please stay off WebMD because it can make my husband’s job difficult when the patients think they know more than he does after reading it online...

 

[locknload]

I have to disagree because "doing" and "teaching" are different things, right? I remember sitting on the range at a Senior PGA Tournament, many years ago, and listening to a well-known guy who had won many PGA and Senior PGA events talking about the mechanics of the golf swing. He was ABSOLUTELY clueless. He was spouting off complete gibberish! He didn't know the first thing about the swing.

But... damn, could he hit a golf ball.

I dunno...while I sort of agree with you. If you show me a guy who can barely swing club as well...not sure he can show me the way. Extreme example...Michael Jordan was probably never gonna be a great coach...even though he's the GOAT...he struggled to understand why nobody was as good as he was. Steve Kerr was an amazing pure shooter and a hell of a coach. If I needed someone to teach me how to shoot....Kerr is the guy...still can demonstrate the skill at a high level but can also help me reach my potential as a shooter which will still never be like him or MJ. Telling me a guy who has a hideous and ineffective jumper is gonna be a great teacher of that skill will be hard for me to believe. The biggest proof of concept that an instructor can provide to a student is demonstrate the exact thing they are trying to teach right? If they can't execute the concept why should a student be able to? I am NOT saying they need to be an elite golfer...but they should be a decent one with a solid swing.

 

[locknload]

That seems a bit much to me.. I appreciate an instructor who wants to work together and doesn’t consider themselves the only source of truth. For example, I do an adult seasonal ski program. There is one instructor in particular that I enjoy very much, not just because she is an amazing instructor and person.. but our interactions are an exchange and a give and take. I often watch Deb Armstrong videos and so does she, and we will discuss certain topics of interest as a focus for the day or just in general on the chair lift. She has said she likes that I do that as it provides input to the focus on some days versus just her dictating it always, and it leads to very fun and conditions of the day learnings when they match up. She feels the more the student is interacting this way, the more they also get out of the lesson, and I agree because it keeps me very engaged.

Perhaps it is not a totally apples to apples comparison given I am a much more accomplished skier than golfer.. so I can also participate in those conversations at a higher level and take tidbits from videos more appropriately to work on what I want to. But still.. I appreciate her enthusiasm and encouragement to bring forth topics of interest and to take things from amazing instructors online to share and discuss and work on together. I’m not sure I’d mesh well as a student with someone who expects me to put blinders on for anything outside of their teaching. I’m a very analytical person, I like to research and watch things and then ask questions in person with my instructors.

Agree...I thought the instructors statement was a bit arrogant and overly dramatic. Ultimately a student has to decide what information to trust in order to improve at whatever rate they want to. If you choose to pay and trust your instructor..it likely is good to focus on what they are teaching and not get too distracted. That said, there are some phenomal people on line who explain similar concepts in different ways. As long as it doesn't totally conflict with what you are working on with your instructor.....there is nothing wrong with experimenting with concepts and ideas from other instructors.

 

[freeskier1961]

I regularly shoot 70, then I have to play the back nine

 

[salvatore]

I dunno...while I sort of agree with you. If you show me a guy who can barely swing club as well...not sure he can show me the way. Extreme example...Michael Jordan was probably never gonna be a great coach...even though he's the GOAT...he struggled to understand why nobody was as good as he was. Steve Kerr was an amazing pure shooter and a hell of a coach. If I needed someone to teach me how to shoot....Kerr is the guy...still can demonstrate the skill at a high level but can also help me reach my potential as a shooter which will still never be like him or MJ. Telling me a guy who has a hideous and ineffective jumper is gonna be a great teacher of that skill will be hard for me to believe. The biggest proof of concept that an instructor can provide to a student is demonstrate the exact thing they are trying to teach right? If they can't execute the concept why should a student be able to? I am NOT saying they need to be an elite golfer...but they should be a decent one with a solid swing.

My initial thought was that I'd agree a good instructor should have a pretty solid game, but now that I think about it more, I'm not so sure. It's an excellent topic for discussion.

We shouldn't conflate teaching a skill and coaching a team. Kerr may be the better coach, but we have no evidence that MJ isn't the better teacher of the jump shot. A coach is a more holistic endeavor. You try to learn a little bit about all the parts, but more importantly you are a psychologist. A teacher of a skill might not work well with groups of people, might not be able to motivate, but might be a genius and might literally revolutionize a specific facet of a game. With golf, Moe Norman is the perfect example! Or in baseball, that is why there is a manager, and why he has individualized coaches to teach the specific skills of pitching, catching, infield, batting, etc. (Does that make sense? I'm sussing this out as I write...). Some of the best managers or coaches were mediocre players. Now, in reality they were probably 99.9% way better than average (Nick Saban's playing career only made it as far as Kent State, Mike Krzyzewski only played at West Point, etc) but they didn't play to the level they coach to. I think, ultimately, that anyone who has enough passion for a sport that in turn they begin to coach it, that person probably is/was a fairly decent participant themselves. On this we agree. I'm just not sure if it is necessary.

Returning to golf, very little instruction is done via example on the range. In fact, I have a personal rule (passed on to me some 40 years ago by a pro I was working with) that I never, ever hit a ball during a lesson. I may swing the club, show some movements, but I don't strike any shots. More than anything, however, I place the student in the proper positions and let them feel the proper sensations. My experience as an instructor doesn't come from my own extensive playing experience. It comes from reading, studying, watching, listening, observing. I've taken some of those things and applied them to my own game, kept what worked and what threw out what didn't, but golf is so individualized, my knowledge as a teacher is built on a passion for studying the mechanics of the golf swing, not in my own performance. I could argue, in fact, that my own game ultimately suffered because of that passion to be so devoted to the swing. As I said, "golf, not golf swing." I didn't comprehend that early enough. I'm sure there are other coaches with a similar experience.

I don't know. I do now that Ben Crenshaw and others continued working with Harvey Penick after Penick was unable to walk. He certainly wasn't striking the ball to teach them motions. He provided instruction with his words after using his eyes and ears and observational skills. And I'm sure he was able to teach young players who never saw him stand up, let alone strike a ball. Maybe golf itself is different. Just look at the amount of copy written about the golf swing. The number of books is astounding!

 

[locknload]

My initial thought was that I'd agree a good instructor should have a pretty solid game, but now that I think about it more, I'm not so sure. It's an excellent topic for discussion.

We shouldn't conflate teaching a skill and coaching a team. Kerr may be the better coach, but we have no evidence that MJ isn't the better teacher of the jump shot. A coach is a more holistic endeavor. You try to learn a little bit about all the parts, but more importantly you are a psychologist. A teacher of a skill might not work well with groups of people, might not be able to motivate, but might be a genius and might literally revolutionize a specific facet of a game. With golf, Moe Norman is the perfect example! Or in baseball, that is why there is a manager, and why he has individualized coaches to teach the specific skills of pitching, catching, infield, batting, etc. (Does that make sense? I'm sussing this out as I write...). Some of the best managers or coaches were mediocre players. Now, in reality they were probably 99.9% way better than average (Nick Saban's playing career only made it as far as Kent State, Mike Krzyzewski only played at West Point, etc) but they didn't play to the level they coach to. I think, ultimately, that anyone who has enough passion for a sport that in turn they begin to coach it, that person probably is/was a fairly decent participant themselves. On this we agree. I'm just not sure if it is necessary.

Returning to golf, very little instruction is done via example on the range. In fact, I have a personal rule (passed on to me some 40 years ago by a pro I was working with) that I never, ever hit a ball during a lesson. I may swing the club, show some movements, but I don't strike any shots. More than anything, however, I place the student in the proper positions and let them feel the proper sensations. My experience as an instructor doesn't come from my own extensive playing experience. It comes from reading, studying, watching, listening, observing. I've taken some of those things and applied them to my own game, kept what worked and what threw out what didn't, but golf is so individualized, my knowledge as a teacher is built on a passion for studying the mechanics of the golf swing, not in my own performance. I could argue, in fact, that my own game ultimately suffered because of that passion to be so devoted to the swing. As I said, "golf, not golf swing." I didn't comprehend that early enough. I'm sure there are other coaches with a similar experience.

I don't know. I do now that Ben Crenshaw and others continued working with Harvey Penick after Penick was unable to walk. He certainly wasn't striking the ball to teach them motions. He provided instruction with his words after using his eyes and ears and observational skills. And I'm sure he was able to teach young players who never saw him stand up, let alone strike a ball. Maybe golf itself is different. Just look at the amount of copy written about the golf swing. The number of books is astounding!

Agree..great topic. Maybe MJ could teach us all to shoot like him...I'm guessing he wouldn't have the patience with us mortals..hell he used to chew out Kerr. Agree with the thoughts about Coach K, Saban etc. Football is also different b/c there so many positions and there's no way a coach would have a background in all. I bet Peyton Manning would be a great QB coach b/c he's so cerebral but not everyone has his talent.

To your main point toward at the end of a coach not striking a ball during a lesson....I couldn't disagree more strongly. I have the best coach currently I've ever had. He doesn't strike a lot of balls during my lesson but he does demonstrate something he's trying to teach both live and on tape by hitting few when appropriate. He still has to figure out how to get ME to feel it..but seeing it helps my learning. The entire session is focused on my swing but giving me different ways to understand how to achieve the feel that will help drive the outcome. It is also very helpful to see him hit a ball on the screws AND occasionally to not be perfectly in sequence which shows me: A..he's human just like me and B...how to recognize what out sequence is and how it feels. My point here is there are a lot of different ways to try and get another person to feel something that can be difficult to describe and even harder to feel.

 

[salvatore]

To your main point toward at the end of a coach not striking a ball during a lesson....I couldn't disagree more strongly. I have the best coach currently I've ever had. He doesn't strike a lot of balls during my lesson but he does demonstrate something he's trying to teach both live and on tape by hitting few when appropriate. He still has to figure out how to get ME to feel it..but seeing it helps my learning. The entire session is focused on my swing but giving me different ways to understand how to achieve the feel that will help drive the outcome. It is also very helpful to see him hit a ball on the screws AND occasionally to not be perfectly in sequence which shows me: A..he's human just like me and B...how to recognize what out sequence is and how it feels. My point here is there are a lot of different ways to try and get another person to feel something that can be difficult to describe and even harder to feel.

This is fascinating! We humans are so different!

My interpretation is nothing good can come from seeing me hit the ball during a lesson on the range.* A.) If I pure it, the student thinks, "Well sure, he makes it look so easy. He has no idea how hard this is for me! Show off." and B.) If I don't hit it perfect, the student thinks, "Wait, he didn't hit that so great. Why am I taking lessons from him?"**

I do demonstrate short game, always. I think for that aspect of the game (chipping, pitching, sand play, putting) it helps to see me and how I play shots.

* I specify on the range because a "playing lesson" is one place where you need to see me strike the ball. Also how I shape shots to best approach the hole.
** I'm laughing a bit as I am reminded of a funny experience while caddying and having a disagreement with a player after giving him a yardage and a club. He came up short, disputed my yardage (my yardages were never wrong), and challenged me to hit the shot. Imagine how well that went over when I stepped up, without warming up and in sneakers, and knocked it pin-high. Yeah, didn't get the tip I was expecting.

 

[Living Proof]

Mygolfspy.com is a website devoted to golf equipment, including balls. Each year they do a very extensive ball testing program, using a mechanical swing device to assure constancy of the ball strike. They just published the 2023 ball testing results, You can find it on their website, or, just google "my golf spy 2023 ball testing".
The results include testing at 3 swing speeds, the low is 85 mph, so we mere mortals are covered.
Among their findings, and its consistent year to year, is that soft balls do not go far. Also, they have a list of preferred balls for each of the 3 swing speeds.
Take a look, share any thoughts. Remember, this is data driven, as an analytic type I value what they say.

 

[locknload]

This is fascinating! We humans are so different!

My interpretation is nothing good can come from seeing me hit the ball during a lesson on the range.* A.) If I pure it, the student thinks, "Well sure, he makes it look so easy. He has no idea how hard this is for me! Show off." and B.) If I don't hit it perfect, the student thinks, "Wait, he didn't hit that so great. Why am I taking lessons from him?"**

I do demonstrate short game, always. I think for that aspect of the game (chipping, pitching, sand play, putting) it helps to see me and how I play shots.

* I specify on the range because a "playing lesson" is one place where you need to see me strike the ball. Also how I shape shots to best approach the hole.
** I'm laughing a bit as I am reminded of a funny experience while caddying and having a disagreement with a player after giving him a yardage and a club. He came up short, disputed my yardage (my yardages were never wrong), and challenged me to hit the shot. Imagine how well that went over when I stepped up, without warming up and in sneakers, and knocked it pin-high. Yeah, didn't get the tip I was expecting.

Love that caddie story. I think the hardest thing about teaching the golf swing is you really are teaching someone to "feel" something you "feel". When you think about how abstract that is...its crazy. Yes there is a mechanical movement to execute....but each person feels it differently. I dunno...it has to be so difficult to teach golf b/c I think its so much harder than teaching someone to throw a baseball or shoot a basketball.

 

[Philpug]

Overheard: What is the course record? About 2:45.

 

[Jwrags]

This is fascinating! We humans are so different!

My interpretation is nothing good can come from seeing me hit the ball during a lesson on the range.* A.) If I pure it, the student thinks, "Well sure, he makes it look so easy. He has no idea how hard this is for me! Show off." and B.) If I don't hit it perfect, the student thinks, "Wait, he didn't hit that so great. Why am I taking lessons from him?"**

I do demonstrate short game, always. I think for that aspect of the game (chipping, pitching, sand play, putting) it helps to see me and how I play shots.

* I specify on the range because a "playing lesson" is one place where you need to see me strike the ball. Also how I shape shots to best approach the hole.
** I'm laughing a bit as I am reminded of a funny experience while caddying and having a disagreement with a player after giving him a yardage and a club. He came up short, disputed my yardage (my yardages were never wrong), and challenged me to hit the shot. Imagine how well that went over when I stepped up, without warming up and in sneakers, and knocked it pin-high. Yeah, didn't get the tip I was expecting.

My instructor occasionally swings the club to demonstrate something and less often hits a ball or two with my club. The benefit is to me is to demonstrate that my clubs are not the problem