Can lessons be a waste of time?

[Tommygun16]

I had lessons when I first started but after 6 lessons I stopped. I didn't really receive any advice as to how to build a repeatable swing. So I pretty much just started watching Tour pros and tried to copy them (no it didn't make me a tour player). Eventually, I bought "A swing for Life" by Nick Faldo, that book alone got me down to a 9 handicap (albeit a short hitter), with my best round being 3 over.

Since then I have looked at other Tour Players books, aswell as Butch Harmon and now Ben Hogan, but I think I will go back to Nick Faldo as that works best.

Quite. There seems to be a massive flaw with the pro approach. Honestly never met anyone who was better after lessons, the best players I know played since they were young and had it all worked out then.

How long did it take you to get to a point where you could hit the ball consistently? And would you still recommend the Faldo book?

 

[Lee762]

Quite. There seems to be a massive flaw with the pro approach. Honestly never met anyone who was better after lessons, the best players I know played since they were young and had it all worked out then.

How long did it take you to get to a point where you could hit the ball consistently? And would you still recommend the Faldo book?

Once I started focusing on the basics of the swing etc it came pretty quick. Don't get me wrong I am not stripping it out of the middle every time but my dispersion is pretty good with my irons both front to back and left to right.

I would 100% recommend Nick Faldos book, although it does not fit in with todays method, for example hooding the face on the takeaway, Faldo is more rotating the club. I find this works well for me and I have better control of the ball and flight.

Faldo breaks down the swing into sections and he states that he believes that anyone that can replicate these positions are capable of becoming a single figure golfer. I am to a degree proof of that.

I find that with todays method you put a lot of strain on your lower back.

 

[bobmac]

What would you say is ''todays method''?

 

[Deleted member 23270]

Quite. There seems to be a massive flaw with the pro approach. Honestly never met anyone who was better after lessons, the best players I know played since they were young and had it all worked out then.

How long did it take you to get to a point where you could hit the ball consistently? And would you still recommend the Faldo book?

Do you not think they had lessons when they were younger?

 

[Tommygun16]

Do you not think they had lessons when they were younger?

I'm sure some might, but the friends of mine who played when they were younger didn't, they just figured it out at the time by going to the range and messing around. I'm taking my child to golf lessons, but it's different at a very young age as it's not really a 'lesson'; the primary purpose is fun. At that age (5-9) I think you're going to naturally pick up the mechanics of how to swing the club. At 30+ I reckon trying to teach that to an adult gets much harder. As I say, my experience has been poor so far.

 

[Deleted member 23270]

I'm sure some might, but the friends of mine who played when they were younger didn't, they just figured it out at the time by going to the range and messing around. I'm taking my child to golf lessons, but it's different at a very young age as it's not really a 'lesson'; the primary purpose is fun. At that age (5-9) I think you're going to naturally pick up the mechanics of how to swing the club. At 30+ I reckon trying to teach that to an adult gets much harder. As I say, my experience has been poor so far.

OK. I'm pretty sure that you will find that 99% of tour players and top amateurs take or have taken lessons in order to get where they are. Maybe you have just found poor teaching pros.

 

[Tommygun16]

OK. I'm pretty sure that you will find that 99% of tour players and top amateurs take or have taken lessons in order to get where they are. Maybe you have just found poor teaching pros.

Oh yes, of that I have no doubt. But the experience I described above ('let me watch your swing and offer advice') works perfectly for them as they have a swing, so they can make tweaks and adjustments here and there. I'm starting from nothing and being told what a swing should feel and look like is like getting blood from a stone.

 

[Lee762]

What would you say is ''todays method''?

From what I have heard PGA pros teaching at the ranges, it is very much hood the club face going back and then on the down swing turn hard left, which is the only way you can square the club face.

Whilst this seems logical, the amount of players I have seen that have had pretty consistent swings all of a sudden cannot keep the ball in play is shocking. I watch a player over a period of 3-4 months go from a steady 3 handicap player to someone who is struggling to break 90, due to the massive hooks and pulls. Granted when he is on song he is a good club longer and he may well groove the swing but until then he does not know where or when his miss will be.

Today all seems to be about power and don't worry too much about accuracy. Which to some degree I agree with this, however, if you are missing the fairways and green by large amounts then all the power in the world won't help.

I am definitely in the camp of needing and wanting more power and distance and I am willing to lose some accuracy but not to the point where Im missing fairways and greens by massive margins.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I haven‘t a clue about almost everything on the golf swing that is posted and discussed on these boards. It’s double Dutch to me.

My pro has me taking a task-oriented approach, and he aims to create a learning environment for those he works with so that we can understand the task he sets us and why. He does not focus on swing instruction or ‘fixing’.

My current task. I must deliver the club head square to the ball (back to as it started at address) on a path that makes the ball spin in a way that causes it to fly a fade trajectory. And that’s it. I am not that bothered about how I do that; how great the shot is, or how far I hit it. No confusing swing thoughts whatsoever. I know my current task.

Once I can do that consistently and reasonably well he will task me to hit it straight; and only once I can do that fairly consistently and able to switch between fade and straight will we look at making the ball spin to create a draw trajectory.

Then, if I want, we may look at hitting it further…though I suspect I might not bother with that. My objective is simply to be a half decent single figure handicap golfer. I don’t need to hit the ball far to be that, I just need to be able to exert some control over it.

 

[Lee762]

Oh yes, of that I have no doubt. But the experience I described above ('let me watch your swing and offer advice') works perfectly for them as they have a swing, so they can make tweaks and adjustments here and there. I'm starting from nothing and being told what a swing should feel and look like is like getting blood from a stone.

Tommy, what you have come across is, unfortunately, normal today. It is not about teaching the player how to swing but rather teaching the swing to the player. Yes there are some basics that have stood the test of time but as all great coaches say with these there is always room for adaptation they are not cast in stone.

I for example follow Nick Faldo's swing for life but have a very flat swing, it works for me and I'm relatively consistent (or was when I was following it) because of my swing I have also looked at Ben Hogan and Steve Johnson on YT.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Rarely post these days but felt I needed to offer a contrary point of view. Many on here know I am a firm advocate of lessons. I even went through a winter of a complete change a decade or so ago and spent six months in the golfing doldrums as the changes took place. That was born out of a necessity from a health and body performance perspective. I still have lessons on a regular basis (every 2-3 months) and I buy a block of lessons (well get them as a Christmas present) and every January I sit down with the professional I use and we review my performance the year before, discuss what I did well, badly, how my handicap moved and why and generally look at what we did and what needs work on and come up with a plan.

We usually have a swing MOT in January/February to see where the swing is and put in place some changes, usually relating to set up and the basics. Spring is a one hour short game refresher and from there we tweak as the season goes on depending on what isn't working at the time

The whole point is I have someone that understands my swing, which isn't textbook and never will be, but works within my physical limitations and doesn't seek to reinvent the wheel each time. It has taken time to find someone I trust totally and who has bought into my own ambitions. He knows though that if he gives me a drill to make a change, that I'll go away and work on it and won't flit back to the old ways even when it isn't working. That is fundamental.

Too many people go to a pro wanting change but only go for one lesson and expect a pro to be able to change everything in one hit. It can't be done and at best will be a band aid fix. To really make changes it takes time and a two way commitment. I don't use one of my club pros but I see club members coming for a one off lesson, never going back to the practice ground to work on it and then wonder why it isn't getting better. It takes time and patience and a realisation that you need to take steps backwards to make progress

My advice would be to find a pro with a good reputation and word of mouth is usually a strong source of recommendation. Have a frank discussion about your ability, your physical needs and what you want to achieve. A good pro will be able to work with you on these. It is always a two way street. To simply have a lesson and say they are a waste of time is inaccurate, perhaps even flippant and an indication of someone wanting a quick fix to a problem and golf simply isn't like that

 

[bobmac]

Tommy, what you have come across is, unfortunately, normal today. It is not about teaching the player how to swing but rather teaching the swing to the player.

What swing is this?

 

[Lee762]

What swing is this?

As I stated above. From what I have seen most PGA pros are trying to teach one-set swing and this does not work. Far from it, it can hinder a golfer.

You would'nt teach Furyk swing and Jon Rham's coach was sensible enough not to try and change certain aspects of his swing. My belief is that coaching should be based on the player and not the method.

Providing the player returns the club to the ball correctly nothing else really matters. We are not all going to swing like Ernie or Adam Scott.

 

[Tommygun16]

Rarely post these days but felt I needed to offer a contrary point of view. Many on here know I am a firm advocate of lessons. I even went through a winter of a complete change a decade or so ago and spent six months in the golfing doldrums as the changes took place. That was born out of a necessity from a health and body performance perspective. I still have lessons on a regular basis (every 2-3 months) and I buy a block of lessons (well get them as a Christmas present) and every January I sit down with the professional I use and we review my performance the year before, discuss what I did well, badly, how my handicap moved and why and generally look at what we did and what needs work on and come up with a plan.

We usually have a swing MOT in January/February to see where the swing is and put in place some changes, usually relating to set up and the basics. Spring is a one hour short game refresher and from there we tweak as the season goes on depending on what isn't working at the time

The whole point is I have someone that understands my swing, which isn't textbook and never will be, but works within my physical limitations and doesn't seek to reinvent the wheel each time. It has taken time to find someone I trust totally and who has bought into my own ambitions. He knows though that if he gives me a drill to make a change, that I'll go away and work on it and won't flit back to the old ways even when it isn't working. That is fundamental.

Too many people go to a pro wanting change but only go for one lesson and expect a pro to be able to change everything in one hit. It can't be done and at best will be a band aid fix. To really make changes it takes time and a two way commitment. I don't use one of my club pros but I see club members coming for a one off lesson, never going back to the practice ground to work on it and then wonder why it isn't getting better. It takes time and patience and a realisation that you need to take steps backwards to make progress

My advice would be to find a pro with a good reputation and word of mouth is usually a strong source of recommendation. Have a frank discussion about your ability, your physical needs and what you want to achieve. A good pro will be able to work with you on these. It is always a two way street. To simply have a lesson and say they are a waste of time is inaccurate, perhaps even flippant and an indication of someone wanting a quick fix to a problem and golf simply isn't like that

Nowhere have I said I've had 'a' lesson and they're a waste of time. You've made that bit up. On the contrary, I said I've seen 3x coaches over the years and I'm questioning the method *they* employ - which is to tweak the swing they observe, not teach how to swing.

 

[bobmac]

As I stated above. From what I have seen most PGA pros are trying to teach one-set swing and this does not work. Far from it, it can hinder a golfer.

Not true.
PGA teaching is based on the 5 golf laws at impact.
And they are taught to vary their teaching methods to suit the golfer.
Just out of interest, how many of the 7,500 PGA pros have you seen or spoken to?

From what I have heard PGA pros teaching at the ranges, it is very much hood the club face going back and then on the down swing turn hard left, which is the only way you can square the club face.

I've never heard that before.
In the picture below, how would you describe the clubface?

 

[Tommygun16]

I haven‘t a clue about almost everything on the golf swing that is posted and discussed on these boards. It’s double Dutch to me.

My pro has me taking a task-oriented approach, and he aims to create a learning environment for those he works with so that we can understand the task he sets us and why. He does not focus on swing instruction or ‘fixing’.

My current task. I must deliver the club head square to the ball (back to as it started at address) on a path that makes the ball spin in a way that causes it to fly a fade trajectory. And that’s it. I am not that bothered about how I do that; how great the shot is, or how far I hit it. No confusing swing thoughts whatsoever. I know my current task.

Once I can do that consistently and reasonably well he will task me to hit it straight; and only once I can do that fairly consistently and able to switch between fade and straight will we look at making the ball spin to create a draw trajectory.

Then, if I want, we may look at hitting it further…though I suspect I might not bother with that. My objective is simply to be a half decent single figure handicap golfer. I don’t need to hit the ball far to be that, I just need to be able to exert some control over it.

That's a really interesting approach. The key part is "when I've managed to do [part one] consistently"!! I hope it works for you. I've been stuck on part one for years

 

[Lee762]

Not true.
PGA teaching is based on the 5 golf laws at impact.
And they are taught to vary their teaching methods to suit the golfer.
Just out of interest, how many of the 7,500 PGA pros have you seen or spoken to?

Good question. I obviously have not seen all 7500 PGA Pro's so the same question could be asked of you.

Regarding the 5 Golf Laws, of all of the 7500 PGA pros actually teach this.

Regarding adapting their teaching I would disagree. I have been around enough PGA Pros and not all of them teach the pupil.



I've never heard that before.
In the picture below, how would you describe the clubface?

I started playing in the 80s-90s. If you take the club (and without manipulating the hands) and bring the club in front of Luke the clubface will be closed.
I know that todays teaching recommends that the clubface mirror the spine angle. but as stated above unless you clear hard and to the left you will pull or hook the ball.

The idea of this forum is to discuss and share ideas. What works for me might not work for you but that does not make me wrong or you wrong.

View attachment 44391

 

[Backsticks]

Do you not think they had lessons when they were younger?

In my observation, probably not. Or at least, no more nor less than anyone else. For the best 1%, lessons may have an influence on where an individual ends up within that 1%.
But for the other 99% I would guess no correlation between lessons and golf level.
And none at all between lessons had by the 99% and the 1%.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Nowhere have I said I've had 'a' lesson and they're a waste of time. You've made that bit up. On the contrary, I said I've seen 3x coaches over the years and I'm questioning the method *they* employ - which is to tweak the swing they observe, not teach how to swing.

Taken from your first post

Complete waste of time. I think you have to figure it out yourself. Thoughts? Your implication, including the title implies your thoughts that they are a waste of time.

 

[Tommygun16]

Taken from your first post

Complete waste of time. I think you have to figure it out yourself. Thoughts? Your implication, including the title implies your thoughts that they are a waste of time.

Well, if you read the whole scenario you would see that was one specific example where the pro recommended swing changes to fix something I never do (shank). So yes that one did feel like a waste of time. But I did not have one lesson and deem all lessons a waste of time. Given my experiences over a few years, and apparently others on here as well, I think it's a legitimate question. Clearly you think they're useful and that's fine.