Does a club pro need to be a good player

[MadGolfer76]

That is one of the dumbest quotes of all time.

 

I'll be sure to let George know how you feel.

 

You realize that Shaw was a dramatist, don't you, and that one of the men he idolized growing up was a music teacher? :russian_roulette:

 

That quote^ is a rally call for anyone who views his/her own education as an unrewarding experience. It was uttered by a pessimistic Marxist who favored eugenics, dictatorships, forgoing immunizations (despite experiencing smallpox), and other questionable stances as well. Not a stretch that he would speak ill of teachers as he no doubt viewed them to be agents of "bourgeois indoctrination," especially seeing as how he didn't live into the modern era of education (or receive a formal education himself). Even in his own time, there were people like Albert Einstein who held positions as faculty while they worked on their own research. In golf, even Sam Snead and Ben Hogan had to teach lessons to get by. To repeat something like that quote is a truly short-sighted decision, and is not unlike a youngster experimenting with a learned profanity at the dinner table.

[Forged4ever]

I am of the opinion that if what you are teaching/works, you should be able to perform it.

I agree with this and here's the deal-

 

Just as there is no swing for all golfers and there is no iron, driver or putter for every golfer, so too is there not a Teacher/Pro that is the best choice for every level of golfer.

 

I used to talk to Pete and his Bro(Sam) a lot about this and you will not find a Player of Sam's caliber(say, top 5-6 in the history of the game) who gave the thought and time that he did for instruction and teaching, from taking 15-30 minutes to work with a perfect stranger on the practice line if he saw them struggling, to the time, thought and effort that he put into the GD Instruction Schools and his attendence at their Pro/Teacher summits. He took it very seriously and was a real thorn in the sides of the Pros like McKlean, who had a swing theory du jour, depending on which way that the wind was blowing.

 

His thing was the vast majority of Pros/Teachers are not equipped or qualified to teach "their" swing to Plus Players/Pros because they themselves had never swung that swing successfully under the pressures of tournament golf, be it USGA, College, District PGA events or Tour events or had a successful student at that level.

 

The body changes under pressure and stress. The breathing changes. Muscle movements and twitches change. And theoretical "perfect" swings change. Even the holding of one's breath will change their swing from a relaxed swing with normal breathing.

 

So, it was Sam's belief that while 98% of the Teachers/Pros out there are fine for 99% of the golfers out there, for a Player/Pro, you should have a Teacher/Pro who has successfully applied their swing that they are teaching, either themselves in tournament Play or through a successful student at the level that you intend to compete.

 

Regarding Michael Breem, if I were a mid/high cap and just wanted to build a sound consistent & reproducible swing, he'd be fine.

 

If it was was 2012 when I was +2.8 and if I'd have wanted to try to take it to the next level, he would not be my choice.

 

The other thing with a legite Plus or Pro is that their swings are like a finely tuned sports car engine~

 

Consistent, efficient & powerful yet sensitive and fickle.

 

Ya have to be very careful what mechanic you let Play with your baby, lol.

 

Stay well Guys :)

 

My Best,

RP

[isaacbm]

I would say it depends on what you're trying to learn. If you're a beginner looking for basic fundaments, I'd say a pros playing resume is not very important.

 

However, if you're a plus handicap golfer looking to improve your temperament for tournaments or know how to manage your time and emotions between rounds, then I think you want to learn from someone that's had success at that level.

[Lime Shark]

People who are naturals at any sport (and most successful pros are naturals to some extent) make the WORST instructors, because they never really understood why they did what they did. The just did it.

 

You know the story of Ralph Guldahl. Once considered the greatest golfer in the game. Then he wrote an instruction book, and could never play again. He was a natural. Never thought about what he was doing; never knew what he was doing; never understood what he was doing. But, then he wrote an instruction book and started thinking about what he was doing, but because he didn't understand WHY he did things, his game fell apart.

 

The best instructors (imho) are generally people who barely ever made it (if at all); who had to scratch, claw, and learn every technique in the book just to stay in the game. Because of that, they not only know what they were doing, but they understood why they were doing it.

[dap]

People who are naturals at any sport (and most successful pros are naturals to some extent) make the WORST instructors, because they never really understood why they did what they did. The just did it.

 

You know the story of Ralph Guldahl. Once considered the greatest golfer in the game. Then he wrote an instruction book, and could never play again. He was a natural. Never thought about what he was doing; never knew what he was doing; never understood what he was doing. But, then he wrote an instruction book and started thinking about what he was doing, but because he didn't understand WHY he did things, his game fell apart.

 

The best instructors (imho) are generally people who barely ever made it (if at all); who had to scratch, claw, and learn every technique in the book just to stay in the game. Because of that, they not only know what they were doing, but they understood why they were doing it.

 

If Guldahl is typical of this phenomenon then I'm surprised everyone that debates the ridiculous minutia of the swing on this forum aren't all mental cases on the golf course!

[jslane57]

People who are naturals at any sport (and most successful pros are naturals to some extent) make the WORST instructors, because they never really understood why they did what they did. The just did it.

 

You know the story of Ralph Guldahl. Once considered the greatest golfer in the game. Then he wrote an instruction book, and could never play again. He was a natural. Never thought about what he was doing; never knew what he was doing; never understood what he was doing. But, then he wrote an instruction book and started thinking about what he was doing, but because he didn't understand WHY he did things, his game fell apart.

 

The best instructors (imho) are generally people who barely ever made it (if at all); who had to scratch, claw, and learn every technique in the book just to stay in the game. Because of that, they not only know what they were doing, but they understood why they were doing it.

 

If Guldahl is typical of this phenomenon then I'm surprised everyone that debates the ridiculous minutia of the swing on this forum aren't all mental cases on the golf course!

I've met a few Guldahls. They're certainly not surfing this site. Lol. As for the rest of us, mental cases may fit at times:)

[Forged4ever]

However, if you're a plus handicap golfer looking to improve your temperament for tournaments or know how to manage your time and emotions between rounds, then I think you want to learn from someone that's had success at that level.

Let me say up front that I agree 100% on this statement regarding the mental side as my "Teacher/Mentor" regarding 96-98% of my mental game/visualization/imaging actually was a former NFL Backer by the name of Pete Wysocki, who took my ability to "block" out noise, both internal and external along with my visualization and imaging to a whole nother level on the football field. I just took what he taught me and adapted it to golf, my professional life and some social situations.

 

I've always had to "follow" someone who's "been there done it," and can Teach it versus someone who learned it theoretically and can teach it, such as Bob Rotella, though he's obviously the real deal cuz Paddy says without Rotella, he doesn't win one major, much less three.

 

Was he just being humble? Who knows but obviously Rotella had a profound positive effect on his game. My Tour Bud has one win on Tour, where he beat a Major Winner and Stud in sudden death and he starting seeing Rotella about a year before he won and he says that Rotella made a difference cuz he helped him clear some "baggage" out of his head that was hurting him on Sundays.

 

So while I'm with you in that I gotta follow someone who's been where I wanna go, again, it's an individual thing, especially with the mental game and where as I used to dismiss out of hand someone who hadn't "been there done it," now I at least listen or read their stuff with a more open mind.

 

I like to think it's maturity but Maddie just says that I'm not as big of an a**h*** as I was when I met her ;)

 

I hope that you're well, called Dan and are throwing darts from 165yds and back where you belong :)

 

Fairways Greens Pins & Cups My Friend,

RP

[MadGolfer76]

Interesting, this thread, in terms of what people think is important. In truth, I think it varies by individual need.

 

I've been involved in professional teacher training for fourteen years, after having first been a content area specialist (a fancy name for musician) and then a professional teacher of that content. In those years (so far), the best teacher candidates I have seen graduate are those who tend to have training and life experience in their specific discipline (math, science, etc.) first and then learn to be teachers after they have some real life experience. They seem to be better able to make connections to real life situations, and tend to focus on practicality in their discipline, such that their students emerge as much more "literate" in the subjects they teach.

 

However, I've never seen someone from a particular content path (say a four year degree in math) come into teacher training knowing everything they need to be successful as a teacher. The problem for most people is they tend to ascribe *content* knowledge with skill as a teacher, and that is far from being a reliable assessment strategy. Yes, you need content knowledge about your subject, but you also need to understand the basics of human learning, how to communicate information effectively, how to differentiate (vary) instructional strategies, and how to assess and interpret student performance data. Not to mention the ability to adhere to basic aspects of professionalism like proper attire, time management, interpersonal communication, etc.

 

In other words, you can take someone who is an elite professional in their field, and there is no guarantee of their success as a teacher. Maybe they would be good in certain aspects, or maybe they would be a good teacher with a little help, or with the right students, but a very good teacher should be able to be successful with a diverse population, by definition.

 

Perhaps this is an unfair example (i'm guessing he has better information now), but here is an older video lesson of Justin Rose teaching people how to work the ball. I'm sure most of you will understand what the problem is:

 

[media=]

[/media]

 

And yet, if everyone was asked if they would take a lesson with Justin Rose, everyone would say yes, correct? (Again, not to take anything away from Rose). Therein lies the problem...at the time this video was taken, there were many more teachers available without any great tournament records who could have provided better information, yet they would have been passed over for the big name with the great career record.

 

There are three important aspects of becoming a good teacher - content knowledge, instructional competence, and professionalism. How much any golf learner wants to emphasize any single area above the others when selecting an instructor is entirely up to them. That being part of the problem with golf instruction - any a****** can stand up and proclaim themselves a golf teacher. There are no real standards or strong accrediting agencies to insure quality, but if you find someone who can't speak articulately about what these areas mean to them as teachers, and then also back up their perspectives with data...I would say run far. There is no need to put career records on a pedestal of authenticity any more than to consider content knowledge as king. These days, you should be able to have it all.

[Forged4ever]

Interesting, this thread, in terms of what people think is important. In truth, I think it varies by individual need.

 

I've been involved in professional teacher training for fourteen years, after having first been a content area specialist (a fancy name for musician) and then a professional teacher of that content. In those years (so far), the best teacher candidates I have seen graduate are those who tend to have training and life experience in their specific discipline (math, science, etc.) first and then learn to be teachers after they have some real life experience. They seem to be better able to make connections to real life situations, and tend to focus on practicality in their discipline, such that their students emerge as much more "literate" in the subjects they teach.

 

However, I've never seen someone from a particular content path (say a four year degree in math) come into teacher training knowing everything they need to be successful as a teacher. The problem for most people is they tend to ascribe *content* knowledge with skill as a teacher, and that is far from being a reliable assessment strategy. Yes, you need content knowledge about your subject, but you also need to understand the basics of human learning, how to communicate information effectively, how to differentiate (vary) instructional strategies, and how to assess and interpret student performance data. Not to mention the ability to adhere to basic aspects of professionalism like proper attire, time management, interpersonal communication, etc.

 

In other words, you can take someone who is an elite professional in their field, and there is no guarantee of their success as a teacher. Maybe they would be good in certain aspects, or maybe they would be a good teacher with a little help, or with the right students, but a very good teacher should be able to be successful with a diverse population, by definition.

 

Perhaps this is an unfair example (i'm guessing he has better information now), but here is an older video lesson of Justin Rose teaching people how to work the ball. I'm sure most of you will understand what the problem is:

 

[media=]

[/media]

 

And yet, if everyone was asked if they would take a lesson with Justin Rose, everyone would say yes, correct? (Again, not to take anything away from Rose). Therein lies the problem...at the time this video was taken, there were many more teachers available without any great tournament records who could have provided better information, yet they would have been passed over for the big name with the great career record.

 

There are three important aspects of becoming a good teacher - content knowledge, instructional competence, and professionalism. How much any golf learner wants to emphasize any single area above the others when selecting an instructor is entirely up to them. That being part of the problem with golf instruction - any a****** can stand up and proclaim themselves a golf teacher. There are no real standards or strong accrediting agencies to insure quality, but if you find someone who can't speak articulately about what these areas mean to them as teachers, and then also back up their perspectives with data...I would say run far. There is no need to put career records on a pedestal of authenticity any more than to consider content knowledge as king. These days, you should be able to have it all.

I Agree whole heartedly with your post and my short answer on Justin Rose is that had the opportunity arisen in 2012 to take a lesson from Justin, while I'd enjoy Playin with him or havin a beer with him, like Micheal Breen, I would pass on a golf lesson.

 

I agree that an elite Player does not necessarily transfer to elite Teacher and the Two best Teachers/Mentors that I ever had were Pete Snead, who barely made a living on Tour and the only reason that he did was winning some BB tourneys with his Bro. However he Played enough at the highest level to know what swing and mechanics works under pressure and what doesn't and most importantly, he was a Magician at communicating that to a student.

 

The second was Pete Wysocki, and while he was a 4 year starter for the Skins, he was hardly the prototypical Pro Backer. But he had an amazingly quick first step, he Played just over the line of psychotic and he never ever quit, even when he got his a** handed to him. He had a motor that never ever stopped, sometimes past the whistle, lmao. He also had an amazing ability to motivate and communicate, as witnessed by his Skins teammates voting him Defensive Captain.

 

These two guys were far from stars and actually, they hung around the Tour and the NFL not because of ability, talent or physical prowess, but because they were both tough as nails and believe me here, while Pete Snead was a Gentleman and never swore, he was the toughest Snead Brother and I'd seen more than once when he and Sam were chirpin at one another and he'd stop, turn and give Sam a look, and Sam would STFU and leave the room or green if we were on the course.

 

But my point is that I think the guys who were more "grinders" than stars and can communicate are the best. They've "been there done it," gotten their a**** kicked and showed up the next hole, the next round, the next Play and the next game.

 

All things being equal, I'll take one of those guys/gals, every day all day, whether it's as a Teacher/Mentor, partner/teammate or to my back in a tight situation.

 

Though as you and I have said many times, it's an individual thing.

 

Stay well Bro :)

 

All the Best,

Richard

[pingfool]

Richard highlights the need for "communication" and gives good example of student personality identifying with instructor personality

 

I believe we learn from people we like - easier than people we don't like.

 

answer to op's question = no

 

conversely, great players don't always make for great coaches

 

maybe this nba example illustrates the point

 

magic was a terrible coach - larry not much better - mj never tried - Russell could only coach if he was on the team

 

however, popovich, Carlisle, thiboudeau all communicate/motivate their players

 

best example - phil Jackson was an over-achieving role player that got inside his best players' head and used him to motivate the rest of the team

[just plain bill]

That is one of the dumbest quotes of all time.

yeah. i dare anyone who believes that quote to take up teaching...dbl dare!!!!!!!!!!

[PutterKilledTheDream]

Do any of you guys believe it's possible to be an effective coach/instructor to tour professionals at the highest levels without any competitive level playing experience? Put another way, could an instructor who's never had any real playing experience end up being a great instructor?

[MadGolfer76]

Do any of you guys believe it's possible to be an effective coach/instructor to tour professionals at the highest levels without any competitive level playing experience? Put another way, could an instructor who's never had any real playing experience end up being a great instructor?

 

To answer that, you first have to consider whether or not there actually is some kind of privileged pool of information out there that is inaccessible to someone who didn't play on the top tours. Personally, I don't think there is anything swing-related that really qualifies. There is a lot of merit to the notion that elite performers (in any discipline) are actually the easiest to coach, and need only a reliable set of eyes to keep them on track. I suspect that corrections or changes in a swing at that level are minimal, and players aren't really looking to reinvent the wheel.

[Forged4ever]

Do any of you guys believe it's possible to be an effective coach/instructor to tour professionals at the highest levels without any competitive level playing experience? Put another way, could an instructor who's never had any real playing experience end up being a great instructor?

Did Haney have any real competitive experience? My only question is has their swing theory/model stood up to Tour pressure and as Mad noted, many guys just need another set of eyes. I believe that Butch is on a level by himself and I know that Pete really had a ton of respect for him and it was more for what he did for his students mentally, which transferred to their physical swings, than any great swing theory or "pearls."

 

Have a nice evening

 

All the Best,

RP

[TB07]

Do any of you guys believe it's possible to be an effective coach/instructor to tour professionals at the highest levels without any competitive level playing experience? Put another way, could an instructor who's never had any real playing experience end up being a great instructor?

 

I would say yes. Best coaches in any sport are rarely best players, but majority do have experience playing. With golf, usually coaches are on lower level tours anyway. So where does the line get drawn? If you can't make it to PGA or at least web.com?

[jslane57]

Do any of you guys believe it's possible to be an effective coach/instructor to tour professionals at the highest levels without any competitive level playing experience? Put another way, could an instructor who's never had any real playing experience end up being a great instructor?

I'd say it depends on the player as much as the coach. Tour players were once beginners and high school players. Some know their swing and fix things on their own, but another set of eyes and a boost of confidence helps. Others need help immediately when things go bad, and others want to do new things and want only a top name teacher. Jim Furyk talked to his dad/sent a few pics on the phone to diagnose his swing, and boom, 58.

[PutterKilledTheDream]

Do any of you guys believe it's possible to be an effective coach/instructor to tour professionals at the highest levels without any competitive level playing experience? Put another way, could an instructor who's never had any real playing experience end up being a great instructor?

 

I would say yes. Best coaches in any sport are rarely best players, but majority do have experience playing. With golf, usually coaches are on lower level tours anyway. So where does the line get drawn? If you can't make it to PGA or at least web.com?

I wouldn't even draw a line that narrow, but that wasn't my question. I was asking if an average Joe 15 cap for example decided he wanted to be a professional instructor without any real applicable playing experience to draw off. Can that coach effectively 'coach' which is very different than simply analyzing swings/radar/ect, if they've can't relate to the emotions, feels, nuances, ect that experience bring?

Say a guy squeaks through the PAT on his 10th attempt..... or maybe never went through the process at all?

[jslane57]

Do any of you guys believe it's possible to be an effective coach/instructor to tour professionals at the highest levels without any competitive level playing experience? Put another way, could an instructor who's never had any real playing experience end up being a great instructor?

 

I would say yes. Best coaches in any sport are rarely best players, but majority do have experience playing. With golf, usually coaches are on lower level tours anyway. So where does the line get drawn? If you can't make it to PGA or at least web.com?

I wouldn't even draw a line that narrow, but that wasn't my question. I was asking if an average Joe 15 cap for example decided he wanted to be a professional instructor without any real applicable playing experience to draw off. Can that coach effectively 'coach' which is very different than simply analyzing swings/radar/ect, if they've can't relate to the emotions, feels, nuances, ect that experience bring?

Say a guy squeaks through the PAT on his 10th attempt..... or maybe never went through the process at all?

This question is a little different. And the answer is no. No player would allow it. As it is now, even good highschool team coaches don't touch the better player's swings as all those players have their own pros already...

[iteachgolf]

Do any of you guys believe it's possible to be an effective coach/instructor to tour professionals at the highest levels without any competitive level playing experience? Put another way, could an instructor who's never had any real playing experience end up being a great instructor?

 

I would say yes. Best coaches in any sport are rarely best players, but majority do have experience playing. With golf, usually coaches are on lower level tours anyway. So where does the line get drawn? If you can't make it to PGA or at least web.com?

I wouldn't even draw a line that narrow, but that wasn't my question. I was asking if an average Joe 15 cap for example decided he wanted to be a professional instructor without any real applicable playing experience to draw off. Can that coach effectively 'coach' which is very different than simply analyzing swings/radar/ect, if they've can't relate to the emotions, feels, nuances, ect that experience bring?

Say a guy squeaks through the PAT on his 10th attempt..... or maybe never went through the process at all?

This question is a little different. And the answer is no. No player would allow it. As it is now, even good highschool team coaches don't touch the better player's swings as all those players have their own pros already...

 

Plenty of players have allowed multiple people with that background to coach them. It's not like guys on tour ask coaches what they shoot before hiring them or their playing background.

[TB07]

Do any of you guys believe it's possible to be an effective coach/instructor to tour professionals at the highest levels without any competitive level playing experience? Put another way, could an instructor who's never had any real playing experience end up being a great instructor?

 

I would say yes. Best coaches in any sport are rarely best players, but majority do have experience playing. With golf, usually coaches are on lower level tours anyway. So where does the line get drawn? If you can't make it to PGA or at least web.com?

I wouldn't even draw a line that narrow, but that wasn't my question. I was asking if an average Joe 15 cap for example decided he wanted to be a professional instructor without any real applicable playing experience to draw off. Can that coach effectively 'coach' which is very different than simply analyzing swings/radar/ect, if they've can't relate to the emotions, feels, nuances, ect that experience bring?

Say a guy squeaks through the PAT on his 10th attempt..... or maybe never went through the process at all?

 

I would say it's possible. Not likely, but possible. Personally I wouldn't be closed off to someone of much less ability knowing more technical stuff and therefore being able to help. I wouldn't prefer it, and would consider it an exception versus the rule, but possible.

[jslane57]

Do any of you guys believe it's possible to be an effective coach/instructor to tour professionals at the highest levels without any competitive level playing experience? Put another way, could an instructor who's never had any real playing experience end up being a great instructor?

 

I would say yes. Best coaches in any sport are rarely best players, but majority do have experience playing. With golf, usually coaches are on lower level tours anyway. So where does the line get drawn? If you can't make it to PGA or at least web.com?

I wouldn't even draw a line that narrow, but that wasn't my question. I was asking if an average Joe 15 cap for example decided he wanted to be a professional instructor without any real applicable playing experience to draw off. Can that coach effectively 'coach' which is very different than simply analyzing swings/radar/ect, if they've can't relate to the emotions, feels, nuances, ect that experience bring?

Say a guy squeaks through the PAT on his 10th attempt..... or maybe never went through the process at all?

This question is a little different. And the answer is no. No player would allow it. As it is now, even good highschool team coaches don't touch the better player's swings as all those players have their own pros already...

 

Plenty of players have allowed multiple people with that background to coach them. It's not like guys on tour ask coaches what they shoot before hiring them or their playing background.

If you make it to the tour level, you're not Joe Average 15 hcp level as an instructor. If you are Joe Average 15 hcp, you don't make it beyond highschool level coaching, because while maybe the pros can see value in good eyes, parents are not hiring you to teach their prodigy, and you're not getting the chance. The teachers at the pro levels had to get there. And they usually do that by playing well first...

Of course there are exceptions to every rule.

[pinhigh27]

 

If you make it to the tour level, you're not Joe Average 15 hcp level as an instructor. If you are Joe Average 15 hcp, you don't make it beyond highschool level coaching, because while maybe the pros can see value in good eyes, parents are not hiring you to teach their prodigy, and you're not getting the chance. The teachers at the pro levels had to get there. And they usually do that by playing well first...

Of course there are exceptions to every rule.

 

except there are avg joe 15 hcp lvl instructors out there. leverage social media and create a niche and it can happen. I don't support it but it's certainly out there

[Santiago Golf]

I like the pints the points people are makeng about the natural good player and how they would not make a good teacher but a couple things come to mine for me.

 

First, I will use some examples from my life. I stared playing loads of ping pong during my freshman years of college. Im talking 20 plus games a day. I would always play against the same 5-8 guys and they were all way above my skill level. For the first semester I think I won a toatl of maybe 10 games. But I kept at it and continue to play and now in my senior year I am one the best players in the circle of now 15-10 guys I regualry play.

 

The point is though, if someone wanted to get better at ping pong and ask me how I hit some of my shots, I wouldn't have an answer for them. I could not be able to teach the game.

 

But at the same time I look at to very good golfers who received very little instruction and are naturals at the game, that I think would make great instructors.

 

Bubba and Lee Trevino

 

Anytime they talk about the game or the swing they bring up alot of good points.

 

But then you someone like Johnny Miller who he too was a natural at the game, and when he talks about the swing he contradicts himself and doesn't make many valid pints.

 

For example he loves to talk about how wrong Tiger's head droop in the downswing is. When he himself did the same thing. Just something to think about

 

W

[jslane57]

I like the pints the points people are makeng about the natural good player and how they would not make a good teacher but a couple things come to mine for me.

 

First, I will use some examples from my life. I stared playing loads of ping pong during my freshman years of college. Im talking 20 plus games a day. I would always play against the same 5-8 guys and they were all way above my skill level. For the first semester I think I won a toatl of maybe 10 games. But I kept at it and continue to play and now in my senior year I am one the best players in the circle of now 15-10 guys I regualry play.

 

The point is though, if someone wanted to get better at ping pong and ask me how I hit some of my shots, I wouldn't have an answer for them. I could not be able to teach the game.

 

But at the same time I look at to very good golfers who received very little instruction and are naturals at the game, that I think would make great instructors.

 

Bubba and Lee Trevino

 

Anytime they talk about the game or the swing they bring up alot of good points.

 

But then you someone like Johnny Miller who he too was a natural at the game, and when he talks about the swing he contradicts himself and doesn't make many valid pints.

 

For example he loves to talk about how wrong Tiger's head droop in the downswing is. When he himself did the same thing. Just something to think about

 

W

It is super cool when the best players talk about what they actually do. Especially when it contradicts "by the book". Like when Crenshaw mentioned how he was working on not being still in his putting. These are insights for golfers who are on the bubble of being good but only know what they've read. It is kind of lame when the best players give "by the book" advice, when they clearly don't do it themselves. It is very possible that some of the coaching on the PGA tour that works for the best players is very different than what works for a 10 hcp, and this is precisely why being a quality player matters when teaching other quality players...

[iteachgolf]

 

I would say yes. Best coaches in any sport are rarely best players, but majority do have experience playing. With golf, usually coaches are on lower level tours anyway. So where does the line get drawn? If you can't make it to PGA or at least web.com?

I wouldn't even draw a line that narrow, but that wasn't my question. I was asking if an average Joe 15 cap for example decided he wanted to be a professional instructor without any real applicable playing experience to draw off. Can that coach effectively 'coach' which is very different than simply analyzing swings/radar/ect, if they've can't relate to the emotions, feels, nuances, ect that experience bring?

Say a guy squeaks through the PAT on his 10th attempt..... or maybe never went through the process at all?

This question is a little different. And the answer is no. No player would allow it. As it is now, even good highschool team coaches don't touch the better player's swings as all those players have their own pros already...

 

Plenty of players have allowed multiple people with that background to coach them. It's not like guys on tour ask coaches what they shoot before hiring them or their playing background.

If you make it to the tour level, you're not Joe Average 15 hcp level as an instructor. If you are Joe Average 15 hcp, you don't make it beyond highschool level coaching, because while maybe the pros can see value in good eyes, parents are not hiring you to teach their prodigy, and you're not getting the chance. The teachers at the pro levels had to get there. And they usually do that by playing well first...

Of course there are exceptions to every rule.

 

You'd be wrong about that. There are guys who can't break 100 and never have teaching guys on tour. There are guys who I'm not sure have ever played golf teaching guys on tour. And some of these guys had no prior teaching experience before teaching pro's. Some guys on tour can be every bit as gullible/desperate or more so than your average 25 handicap.

[MadGolfer76]

 

You'd be wrong about that. There are guys who can't break 100 and never have teaching guys on tour. There are guys who I'm not sure have ever played golf teaching guys on tour. And some of these guys had no prior teaching experience before teaching pro's. Some guys on tour can be every bit as gullible/desperate or more so than your average 25 handicap.

 

Not doubting you, but that is hard to fathom.

[Santiago Golf]

I like the pints the points people are makeng about the natural good player and how they would not make a good teacher but a couple things come to mine for me.

 

First, I will use some examples from my life. I stared playing loads of ping pong during my freshman years of college. Im talking 20 plus games a day. I would always play against the same 5-8 guys and they were all way above my skill level. For the first semester I think I won a toatl of maybe 10 games. But I kept at it and continue to play and now in my senior year I am one the best players in the circle of now 15-10 guys I regualry play.

 

The point is though, if someone wanted to get better at ping pong and ask me how I hit some of my shots, I wouldn't have an answer for them. I could not be able to teach the game.

 

But at the same time I look at to very good golfers who received very little instruction and are naturals at the game, that I think would make great instructors.

 

Bubba and Lee Trevino

 

Anytime they talk about the game or the swing they bring up alot of good points.

 

But then you someone like Johnny Miller who he too was a natural at the game, and when he talks about the swing he contradicts himself and doesn't make many valid pints.

 

For example he loves to talk about how wrong Tiger's head droop in the downswing is. When he himself did the same thing. Just something to think about

 

W

It is super cool when the best players talk about what they actually do. Especially when it contradicts "by the book". Like when Crenshaw mentioned how he was working on not being still in his putting. These are insights for golfers who are on the bubble of being good but only know what they've read. It is kind of lame when the best players give "by the book" advice, when they clearly don't do it themselves. It is very possible that some of the coaching on the PGA tour that works for the best players is very different than what works for a 10 hcp, and this is precisely why being a quality player matters when teaching other quality players...

 

Its like when people talked about trying to copy Rory swing or wishing that they had it. When in all honesty, it wouldn't work for you unless you were built like Rory, and had to the time to practice like Rory.

 

The common thing I work on with the below average player (90 or worse) is using the bigger muscles in the swing instead of the hands and keeping your hands in front of the club at impact.

 

For alot better players (80 or less) I have give help to, its more of a slight ball position change or working on changing the path ever so slightly. For changing the way the practice or approaching a particular hole.

[pinhigh27]

I like the pints the points people are makeng about the natural good player and how they would not make a good teacher but a couple things come to mine for me.

 

First, I will use some examples from my life. I stared playing loads of ping pong during my freshman years of college. Im talking 20 plus games a day. I would always play against the same 5-8 guys and they were all way above my skill level. For the first semester I think I won a toatl of maybe 10 games. But I kept at it and continue to play and now in my senior year I am one the best players in the circle of now 15-10 guys I regualry play.

 

The point is though, if someone wanted to get better at ping pong and ask me how I hit some of my shots, I wouldn't have an answer for them. I could not be able to teach the game.

 

But at the same time I look at to very good golfers who received very little instruction and are naturals at the game, that I think would make great instructors.

 

Bubba and Lee Trevino

 

Anytime they talk about the game or the swing they bring up alot of good points.

 

But then you someone like Johnny Miller who he too was a natural at the game, and when he talks about the swing he contradicts himself and doesn't make many valid pints.

 

For example he loves to talk about how wrong Tiger's head droop in the downswing is. When he himself did the same thing. Just something to think about

 

W

It is super cool when the best players talk about what they actually do. Especially when it contradicts "by the book". Like when Crenshaw mentioned how he was working on not being still in his putting. These are insights for golfers who are on the bubble of being good but only know what they've read. It is kind of lame when the best players give "by the book" advice, when they clearly don't do it themselves. It is very possible that some of the coaching on the PGA tour that works for the best players is very different than what works for a 10 hcp, and this is precisely why being a quality player matters when teaching other quality players...

 

Except they aren't talking about what they actually do. They are talking about what they feel they do. huge difference and incredibly important.

 

Following what a tour pro says they're working on is a recipe for disaster.

[Moonlightgrm]

If I am the club owner, the guy doing the hiring and firing, YES. I want my professional to be a strong player, teacher, and proponent of the game.

[jslane57]

I like the pints the points people are makeng about the natural good player and how they would not make a good teacher but a couple things come to mine for me.

 

First, I will use some examples from my life. I stared playing loads of ping pong during my freshman years of college. Im talking 20 plus games a day. I would always play against the same 5-8 guys and they were all way above my skill level. For the first semester I think I won a toatl of maybe 10 games. But I kept at it and continue to play and now in my senior year I am one the best players in the circle of now 15-10 guys I regualry play.

 

The point is though, if someone wanted to get better at ping pong and ask me how I hit some of my shots, I wouldn't have an answer for them. I could not be able to teach the game.

 

But at the same time I look at to very good golfers who received very little instruction and are naturals at the game, that I think would make great instructors.

 

Bubba and Lee Trevino

 

Anytime they talk about the game or the swing they bring up alot of good points.

 

But then you someone like Johnny Miller who he too was a natural at the game, and when he talks about the swing he contradicts himself and doesn't make many valid pints.

 

For example he loves to talk about how wrong Tiger's head droop in the downswing is. When he himself did the same thing. Just something to think about

 

W

It is super cool when the best players talk about what they actually do. Especially when it contradicts "by the book". Like when Crenshaw mentioned how he was working on not being still in his putting. These are insights for golfers who are on the bubble of being good but only know what they've read. It is kind of lame when the best players give "by the book" advice, when they clearly don't do it themselves. It is very possible that some of the coaching on the PGA tour that works for the best players is very different than what works for a 10 hcp, and this is precisely why being a quality player matters when teaching other quality players...

 

Except they aren't talking about what they actually do. They are talking about what they feel they do. huge difference and incredibly important.

 

Following what a tour pro says they're working on is a recipe for disaster.

Unless you're also a tour pro. Which is what I though the premise was...