Golf Instruction Is Getting Out Of Hand: Paul Azinger

[sundaypins]

This is certainly not shooting a cannon from a canoe.  Excellent points. 

 

 

[MonteScheinblum]

What’s out of hand is people going on message boards and social media with antiquated and objectively incorrect information.  Paul was known to say many of these type things on telecasts.   While I like Paul a lot and he was a great player, he said many things on TV that would fall into the earth is flat category.

[virtuoso]

4 minutes ago, MonteScheinblum said:

What’s out of hand is people going on message boards and social media with antiquated and objectively incorrect information.  Paul was known to say many of these type things on telecasts.   While I like Paul a lot and he was a great player, he said many things on TV that would fall into the earth is flat category.

Yeah:

Flat Earth + talent = perfectly fine

Flat Earth + no talent = not perfectly fine

 

[Hawkeye77]

2 hours ago, sundaypins said:

This is certainly not shooting a cannon from a canoe.  Excellent points. 

 

 

 

What a waste of time - he hardly says anything at all and the guy doing the interview is out of his depth and really adds nothing - I'd call it an opportunity lost if Paul had more and more in detail to add.

[sundaypins]

Maybe we'll get lucky and Paul will have more to add in other platform interviews, I'll keep an eye out.   That too would be enjoyable, Paul is pure class with solid information about the art of hitting a golf ball.  

[iacas]

1 hour ago, MonteScheinblum said:

What’s out of hand is people going on message boards and social media with antiquated and objectively incorrect information.  Paul was known to say many of these type things on telecasts.   While I like Paul a lot and he was a great player, he said many things on TV that would fall into the earth is flat category.

 

Uhhhhhh, yup.

 

One of my first Twitter arguments was with Paul over "fundamentals." He was going on about how someone needed to have a grip like such and such… and yet his own grip was strong and he played a fade.

 

Like a lot of players, they know what they felt like they did. They even know what other players look like they did. But they don't necessarily know what they actually did, or what we've learned about golf in the decades since he was relevant as a player.

[WesternRacing]

Azinger’s always been most in love with the sound of his own voice.

[MonteScheinblum]

8 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

Uhhhhhh, yup.

 

One of my first Twitter arguments was with Paul over "fundamentals." He was going on about how someone needed to have a grip like such and such… and yet his own grip was strong and he played a fade.

 

Like a lot of players, they know what they felt like they did. They even know what other players look like they did. But they don't necessarily know what they actually did, or what we've learned about golf in the decades since he was relevant as a player.

There’s nothing wrong with that when you’re a player, but when you’re informing the public you need to educate yourself.

 

Harrington has done an excellent job of that.

[PedronNiall]

4 hours ago, sundaypins said:

This is certainly not shooting a cannon from a canoe.  Excellent points. 

 

 

 

Nothing of merit here. The interviewer seems to have done no research regarding the questions he asked around instruction and overall stats so it just turns into Azinger editorializing from his own experience. Absolute waste of time. Does nothing to present or address the actual problems with instruction or to share what's desirable. 

[Mcgeeno]

I do like the influx of young 20 handicaps at my club watching hours of youtube spending time on the range with their golf radar machine and analyzing all the data they can in order to shoot 94.

 

Some of what he says has merit. The truth is in the middle somewhere. I play my best with one swing thought, one target and a clear mind. The dudes I've seen who spend all this time talking about the 11 positions and swing thoughts they need to hit in order to improve are usually teeing off really early in the competitions I've been a part of. 

Edited June 29 by Mcgeeno

[johnrobison]

What of what he says has merit, though? The truth is that scores have come down even as courses setups are more difficult. Equipment is a factor, sure, but what truth is there to so easily dismiss the improvements in instruction?

[DShepley]

Here is an interesting take from Golf Digest regarding handicaps over the past 40 years.  Men's and Women's handicaps have only modestly improved in the past 40 years, (an average of about 3 strokes), though in that time, course conditions have improved, equipment is much better and the ball goes further with less spin (we know the correlation between handicap and how far a person hits the ball).

 

Equipment and conditions likely have had more impact on this handicap improvement than instruction.  Now...slightly less than 20% of the golfing population take formal lessons and I expect the players who see the best results from this are likely on the margins.  High handicap players can shave strokes with a better understanding of the game / swing, and lower handicap players often devote the time required for the lessons to be fruitful.  Truth is, regardless of tech and science, golf is hard.....and there is still a lot of conflicting info in the 'teaching space'.  Just look at this board...for every guru that posts an idea there is a pile on of hate and 1 million reasons they are wrong (even if they actually make players better).

 

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/golfers-average-handicaps-1984-2023-usga-handicap-archive 

[virtuoso]

8 minutes ago, DShepley said:

Truth is, regardless of tech and science, golf is hard.....and there is still a lot of conflicting info in the 'teaching space'.  Just look at this board...for every guru that posts an idea there is a pile on of hate and 1 million reasons they are wrong (even if they actually make players better).

 

How would you define whether someone is a guru on this board?

[DShepley]

Just now, virtuoso said:

How would you define whether someone is a guru on this board?

I meant when someone posts a link to the actual gurus. Think Milo, Malaska (what ever happened to him?), Jake Hutt, Gankas, etc...

[gators78]

Always gotta take what great players describe around the technicals with a major grain of salt.

 

By necessity these otherworldly talents will majorly oversimplify everything and a very narrow view of what worked (because it worked for them), which makes sense because they needed to do it with tons of pressure and stress on the line, and have an entire playing history to subconsciously pull from. It’s like when Tiger explains different shots and it’s all these feels in his hands, or when Brad Faxon talks about putting and the whole let it go/let it flow message, it’s way easier to do when the other 99% of the fundamentals are perfect.

 

I definitely agree above that Padraig does a great job of explaining in detail key swing ideas, but he also understands the context and slightly less about what he does and more about how to get down the right path of what needs to happen. I also sort of agree with Paul, there is definitely a trend of that turned down face (although a lot of ways to get there), but that’s also just one way to do it. Scottie goes the entirely other way, for example.  

[getitdaily]

4 minutes ago, virtuoso said:

How would you define whether someone is a guru on this board?

Daily post count divided by pii+2.

[virtuoso]

2 minutes ago, DShepley said:

I meant when someone posts a link to the actual gurus. Think Milo, Malaska (what ever happened to him?), Jake Hutt, Gankas, etc...

Do you think we here on this board should have more respect for ideas promoted by the actual gurus?

[GwrxMod]

Here we go again.

 

 

[tatertot]

15 hours ago, MonteScheinblum said:

There’s nothing wrong with that when you’re a player, but when you’re informing the public you need to educate yourself.

 

Harrington has done an excellent job of that.

This is it ... I have a self-built game that is built on bubble game and duct tape, but it's worked to get me near scratch. Could I start over with good instruction and improve? Possibly, but at 50+, don't feel like investing that much time and brainpower. Should I teach my swing to anyone? NO.

[bcflyguy1]

15 hours ago, Mcgeeno said:

I do like the influx of young 20 handicaps at my club watching hours of youtube spending time on the range with their golf radar machine and analyzing all the data they can in order to shoot 94.

 

Some of what he says has merit. The truth is in the middle somewhere. I play my best with one swing thought, one target and a clear mind. The dudes I've seen who spend all this time talking about the 11 positions and swing thoughts they need to hit in order to improve are usually teeing off really early in the competitions I've been a part of. 

My club has a ton of these and see them all the time at fitting events too; when I ask if they take lessons/have a coach their answer is almost always something to the effect of "I watch a lot of Rick Shiels, and...".

 

I politely point out that what they're doing is equivalent to breaking into a pharmacy, taking two of every pill on the shelf, and then wondering why they (at best) don't get any better.

Edited June 30 by bcflyguy1

[iacas]

I'm curious what if anyone people found accurate, or redeeming, or of value in what Paul Azinger said. I didn't think there was much. I don't even know that I agree with Dr. Suttie's comment about how "they're all shut now" (or whatever he said).

 

Does anyone here consider these to particularly shut?

 

 

(DJ is shut, no doubt, but not everyone rotates like he did in his prime, either.)

[HunkaHunkaBirdieLove]

I feel like I should be monetarily compensated for having wasted time watching this. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

[getitdaily]

56 minutes ago, iacas said:

I'm curious what if anyone people found accurate, or redeeming, or of value in what Paul Azinger said. I didn't think there was much. I don't even know that I agree with Dr. Suttie's comment about how "they're all shut now" (or whatever he said).

 

Does anyone here consider these to particularly shut?

 

 

(DJ is shut, no doubt, but not everyone rotates like he did in his prime, either.)

I watched it Sunday. I thought it might be good based on the title. He said a lot without saying a lot...kind of a waste of 5 minutes. 

Edited June 30 by getitdaily

[PedronNiall]

1 hour ago, DShepley said:

Just look at this board...for every guru that posts an idea there is a pile on of hate and 1 million reasons they are wrong (even if they actually make players better).

 

1 hour ago, DShepley said:

I meant when someone posts a link to the actual gurus. Think Milo, Malaska (what ever happened to him?), Jake Hutt, Gankas, etc...

 

 

Discussing what's factual and and what is not isn't out of sorts, and guiding players to correct movements rather than chasing ghosts is of more benefit than holding to wives' tales and fantasy no matter who's passing them along. I continue to be a bit baffled why golfers are so ready to circle the wagons and protect falsehoods rather than saying they want to know what's actually happening in the swing. The biggest disservice remains in the even larger number of players "gurus" could be helping if they'd speak from fact rather than fiction. Actually the biggest disservice is likely in the potential avenues to injury certain stalwarts promote with their interpretations of what happens in the swing, but they go hand-in-hand.

 

The feels for the individual should be based on the reals of the data, not loping after a guru's, shaman's, wizard's, or witch doctor's methodology.

 

The entire problem with this video has been stated and is the same: too much speculation and not enough evaluation and application of information. Were Newton or Galileo or anyone of their ilk of lesser value simply because their teachings aligned with reality while causing turmoil for the establishment? Humans are gonna human and as pointed out in other threads, and when egos and reputations are on the line many see it as the spotlight being on where they were wrong instead of choosing to be active and pointing the spotlight on what the right things are.

 

Data and measurement don't care about established names or who had the best marketing engine in the heyday of mail order video sales or the YouTube instruction boom. Big or small, there are benchmarks all instruction can be measured against now; if something doesn't pass the test it's eventually going to be surfaced. No one is owed a pass on that front no matter how well-regarded or popular they've been.

[ThinkingPlus]

2 hours ago, DShepley said:

Here is an interesting take from Golf Digest regarding handicaps over the past 40 years.  Men's and Women's handicaps have only modestly improved in the past 40 years, (an average of about 3 strokes), though in that time, course conditions have improved, equipment is much better and the ball goes further with less spin (we know the correlation between handicap and how far a person hits the ball).

 

Equipment and conditions likely have had more impact on this handicap improvement than instruction.  Now...slightly less than 20% of the golfing population take formal lessons and I expect the players who see the best results from this are likely on the margins.  High handicap players can shave strokes with a better understanding of the game / swing, and lower handicap players often devote the time required for the lessons to be fruitful.  Truth is, regardless of tech and science, golf is hard.....and there is still a lot of conflicting info in the 'teaching space'.  Just look at this board...for every guru that posts an idea there is a pile on of hate and 1 million reasons they are wrong (even if they actually make players better).

 

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/golfers-average-handicaps-1984-2023-usga-handicap-archive 

Golf courses have gotten harder. That has kept handicaps from going substantially lower.

 

Tee to green has probably gotten a little easier given equipment improvements, instruction, etc..., but green complexes are dramatically tougher. Green speeds are off the charts making saving strokes when you miss a green much harder. Putting has gotten both easier and harder. Lag putting is harder because of the speed, but short putting is easier because of agronomy. Improvement in golf handicaps or lack thereof is alot more complicated than just isolating on equipment, instruction, agronomy, fitness, etc... to derive a cause. JMO

[rsballer10]

These are just my opinions, and since I don't charge $$$ for them you get what you pay for. I think that golf swing instruction is in a great place. For me personally, I already own a smartphone so the ability to film my own swing costs $20 for a tripod. I can get access to a much higher quality instructor than the local pro in my area. For reference, the pro said "he doesn't need video and trackman, he has eyes". Then proceeds to tell me my hips are pointed at the target at impact and that I'm spinning too fast. On video, my hips are barely open. He also said I have too much shaft lean, again this does not show up on video. Yes - golf instruction has improved. You can't make things up anymore. 

 

The other side of the argument is golf swing theory on the internet. Not so much forums like this, but moreso social media and youtube. I suspect that some of the theory is meant to try and build the most effective golf swing, but it seems to me that it's mostly marketing. People's minds are drawn to the extremes, we used to love crazy angles/lag. There was a big 'shallowing' and side bend craze, but I think that's coming to an end as well. Until there's definitive evidence to prove that extreme positions make someone a better golfer at any level, I am convinced it just looks cool on camera.

[Pepperturbo]

It may be contrary to what others came away with after watching, but being old school myself, I like what he says.  He's NOT selling anything, he simplified now and related it to back then.  The golf problems today are just about the same as in Azinger's day, even though instruction is more comprehensive.

 

LOL, he played shut, and they said that couldn't be done, yet today, that's not so much the case.  Azinger and I are similar in one way, he especially likes how far he can still hit driver.  That goes for me too.

Edited June 30 by Pepperturbo

[vandyfan]

If I play without any thoughts in my head I will be out to in, steep as hell and do everything I used to do when I first started playing. I would LOVE to play without swing thoughts but it is not possible for me. I don't have decades of fundamentals beaten into me. I came to golf in my 30s and, as such, need at least 1-2 swing thoughts to keep from slapping it all over the yard. I don't doubt Paul is a fantastic golfer but I am going to pass on applying his process to my game. 

[gators78]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

I'm curious what if anyone people found accurate, or redeeming, or of value in what Paul Azinger said. I didn't think there was much. I don't even know that I agree with Dr. Suttie's comment about how "they're all shut now" (or whatever he said).

 

Does anyone here consider these to particularly shut?

 

 

(DJ is shut, no doubt, but not everyone rotates like he did in his prime, either.)

 

It was definitely sweeping generalization that Suttie made, but I think for the younger and faster players it’s a slight trend, so more like Aldrich, Joaquin, Hovland, Homa’s newer move etc. Xander is also a little more shut with his newer move that crosses the line slightly more. 

 

I’m also biased through some coaching with Scott Cowx where he’s talked about more of the negative beta patterns becoming more common, which has some “openers” on the way down so you need a stronger face to match up.

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, gators78 said:

It was definitely sweeping generalization that Suttie made, but I think for the younger and faster players it’s a slight trend, so more like Aldrich, Joaquin, Hovland, Homa’s newer move etc. Xander is also a little more shut with his newer move that crosses the line slightly more. 

 

I’m also biased through some coaching with Scott Cowx where he’s talked about more of the negative beta patterns becoming more common, which has some “openers” on the way down so you need a stronger face to match up.

 

Possibly, but that's also not really what he said (talking about the up-and-coming players), plus the phone call was two years ago.

 

I don't see it as a long-term trend. Not yet at least. And it's not like there weren't some other shut players back then, so… I don't know. The one point he could have maybe landed I still feel like he didn't even really land, and the interviewer didn't know enough to dive deeper. (Or he chose not to, as it's really just one of many topics in the whole interview.)