DaveM
Tour Winner
Watch you don't break your legs. When you fall off your high horse!:ears: ...
A question for JustOne
- Thread starter HawkeyeMS
- Start date
Watch you don't break your legs. When you fall off your high horse!:ears: ...
JustOne
Ryder Cup Winner
Shouldn't you be getting your beauty sleep about now? :whoo:
HawkeyeMS
Ryder Cup Winner
Picture the scene, you own a nice Ferrari and it's brakes need doing, in a car mag a mechanic says that you can fit some Ford ones to it (he doesn't mention they might knacker the discs) and they'll certainly keep it on the road for a bit... do you fit the Ford ones?
That's what the magazine content implies. If you hit a (pull) draw as prescribed where you close yourself to the target what happens if you don't get the draw? you're in the trees on the right, what if you oclose the face a little? you've snap-hooked it, that's just the beginnig though, because you've closed your stance and slightly turned your back away from the target you'll find it REALLY hard to make a full turn in your backswing (as it feels incredibly weird) without the full turn you lose power and it even causes you to swing more left (over the top) as the turn isn't complete... that'll mean slicing and real duff hooks... it's a car crash just waiting to happen.
I'm not sure it would make any difference but these poor teaching practices are what we currently pay for when we visit our pros. I wonder how much I'd have paid to get wrong info from that guy?
As it happens I like this place a lot, on other forums they are clearly more switched on to what is right/wrong. GolfMagic has people like James Ridyard who works with John Graham who in turn helped pioneer the D-plane with Brian Manzella, GolfWrx has the guys from golfevolution and umpteen great players including world longdrive champ Monte Scheinblum and numerous mini tour players, then there's the sandtrap which has numerous experts and contacts within the pro tour ranks who post things about power accumulators and p1, p2, p3 etc.. pivots, hip stalls, d-plane, pro trackman stats and every swing theory you can think of and yet when I post something here it's as if I'm talking out of my a*se...
oops, did that sound like a mini rant? sorry 'bout that... NURSE!!!!.... I need toilet!
erm, I'm thinking black are the best colour Galvin Greens.. yes/no?
Hope that wasn't aimed at me JustOne, I'm agreeing with you. I just think it would be interesting to get a response from the writer to the fact that we are questioning his teaching.
Why should a well respected PGA Pro come on here and defend his methods of teaching to a bunch of club choppers?
I know who I would trust and it isn't any of the keyboard 'Professionals'.
I know who I would trust and it isn't any of the keyboard 'Professionals'.
Monty_Brown
Tour Rookie
But the PGA itself is now teaching the new ball flight laws... so if if he did his PGA exams now, is the content of the article still the advice he'd give?
In most skilled professions, there is an element of continuous professional development, because ineviatbly knowledge changes.
Not meaning to put words in his mouth, but I believe that Bob is very honest that the ball flight laws he first learned were not what is now regarded as correct. He has adapted his understanding and views accordingly.
That's why it is odd that a PGA pro is in the mag teaching the old ones. For £4 a pop, I think we have a right to expect the most up to date thinking in the magazine. There is a large body of evidence that this article's content is flawed, so why shouldn't anyone question it?
S
Snelly
Guest
To get back to the OP question, I have had a look and am not sure that I will be taking advice from the article either.
In one sense, I agree with JustOne in that I think the articles in golf magazines on tuition and techniques are often based around an angle or gimmick of some sort or another. I understand that this is probably to try and keep things fresh and write something new of course. However, for the most part, I read these and think they are pretty pointless and a waste of time. I am not remotely interested in the latest fad or half brained idea on how to practice your chipping with a "new drill".
That said, it would not appeal to the wider reading audience if every monthly edition included fundamentally important teaching aspects of the game e.g. -an idiots guide to how to grip the club, stand square, etc. Although it would probably be more beneficial!
In a more general sense though, I disagree with JO. Firstly and foremost, this is because his view of how to learn and play golf seems to differ wildly from mine. What I mean is that I have a simplistic view of golf as it is basically a very simple game. My view is that you improve by practising and playing, eradicating the bad and improving the good. I don't think lessons, books, swing gimmicks and DVD's help with anything other than the fundamental basics of the game. The rest has to be learned by the player and that is through playing a great deal of golf. I think it really is that simple.
Stack and Tilt is just another bloke's attempt at making a living from the game and is not revolutionary, not a magic solution for success and I would argue, not really any better than any other approach. In my opinion, it (like most of the swing guru methods) simply adds another layer of confusion and clutter to the learning process in golf.
Lee Trevino and Seve never had lessons. Ed Moses never had a coach. Natural talent? No way. Just hard work, dedication and thousands of hours of practice and play.
Forget stack and tilt, forget lessons, forget books and DVD's. It is all just clutter that bars the way. Same with new gear - no point apart from to make you feel momentarily happier.
Hit thousands of drives, irons, chips and putts and you will improve. If you don't have the time then live with the fact that you have plateaued as a golfer.
Looking for a quick route to success with new equipment or a new approach to the golf swing is a waste of time, effort and money. It won't work. Ever.
In one sense, I agree with JustOne in that I think the articles in golf magazines on tuition and techniques are often based around an angle or gimmick of some sort or another. I understand that this is probably to try and keep things fresh and write something new of course. However, for the most part, I read these and think they are pretty pointless and a waste of time. I am not remotely interested in the latest fad or half brained idea on how to practice your chipping with a "new drill".
That said, it would not appeal to the wider reading audience if every monthly edition included fundamentally important teaching aspects of the game e.g. -an idiots guide to how to grip the club, stand square, etc. Although it would probably be more beneficial!
In a more general sense though, I disagree with JO. Firstly and foremost, this is because his view of how to learn and play golf seems to differ wildly from mine. What I mean is that I have a simplistic view of golf as it is basically a very simple game. My view is that you improve by practising and playing, eradicating the bad and improving the good. I don't think lessons, books, swing gimmicks and DVD's help with anything other than the fundamental basics of the game. The rest has to be learned by the player and that is through playing a great deal of golf. I think it really is that simple.
Stack and Tilt is just another bloke's attempt at making a living from the game and is not revolutionary, not a magic solution for success and I would argue, not really any better than any other approach. In my opinion, it (like most of the swing guru methods) simply adds another layer of confusion and clutter to the learning process in golf.
Lee Trevino and Seve never had lessons. Ed Moses never had a coach. Natural talent? No way. Just hard work, dedication and thousands of hours of practice and play.
Forget stack and tilt, forget lessons, forget books and DVD's. It is all just clutter that bars the way. Same with new gear - no point apart from to make you feel momentarily happier.
Hit thousands of drives, irons, chips and putts and you will improve. If you don't have the time then live with the fact that you have plateaued as a golfer.
Looking for a quick route to success with new equipment or a new approach to the golf swing is a waste of time, effort and money. It won't work. Ever.
M
MetalMickie
Guest
Not so bothered about how infrequently you play. Rather I am interested to know what your qualifications are for criticising PGA trained pro's and their teaching methods.
After all to use one of your own analogies; if you owned a Ferrari you are unlikely to have it serviced by Kwik Fit.
Seve had loads of lessons.....loads,from more than one coach.
Ethan
Money List Winner
Some of which really screwed up his game.
S
Snelly
Guest
Not in the early days. He was only 17 when he burst on the scene and was self taught at that point.
Apologies - should have made that clear.
The Seve example reinforces the point. He was brilliant until he started having lessons.
Ethan
Money List Winner
Not in the early days. He was only 17 when he burst on the scene and was self taught at that point.
Apologies - should have made that clear.
The Seve example reinforces the point. He was brilliant until he started having lessons.
True.
Burying his old swing in the desert didn't help much either.
bladeplayer
Money List Winner
Just wondering where you got that info from ? is there proof he got worse from lessons ? i do scratch my head a bit at things like natrual talent & ok some have it but alot like Tiger & Rory have been manufactured since an early age .. Ricky F is the one new exception i can think of..Not in the early days. He was only 17 when he burst on the scene and was self taught at that point.
Apologies - should have made that clear.
The Seve example reinforces the point. He was brilliant until he started having lessons.
JustOne
Ryder Cup Winner
Perhaps you don't understand me Snelly, my idea of learning the game is simplistic too, put the ball down and hit it, the ball flight dictates what you are doing wrong. If it hooks left your clubface is too closed and/or your swingpath was too in-to-out. That's all there is to it provided you can create enough clubhead speed to play the course.
Is it me who is saying roll your wrists, 'kick across the football', close your stance to the target.... I don't think so.
Philm
Challenge Tour Pro
@MetalMickie, i think the real point here is the PGA trained pro is is continuing to teach contrary to what the PGA now believe to be proven and true. that not right even if it is what he was taught.
similar to any given profession, if your not up to date then your qualification is as good as pointless(so long as you dont use it) and as bad as dangerous(if you do)
Bob our resident pro moves with the times and with science and continues to be an asset as a PGA pro
so is the PGA wrong? no. i dont think so.
are some PGA pros refusing to teach or learn what their own body approves? yes at times.
Phil
bladeplayer
Money List Winner
Never been for lessons so well open to correction here , does the pro not work with the individual rather than just im here to teach every student just ABC etc .. surely where you have people of different sizes (weight, height) different mobility & flexability etc , surely the pro has to work with people on an individual basis , is it as simple as the PGA recommend this so im going to teach it to all my students ??
Bob id love to hear your opinion on this please ..
Bob id love to hear your opinion on this please ..
S
Snelly
Guest
Perhaps I misrepresent you then? When i read your posts on the swing in particular, it reads as a highly analytical, technical, mechanical approach to hitting the ball. This is the opposite to me.
That's what I mean when I say I think our approaches differ.
Anyway, HNY mate!
