Fairy Dust and Truth Serum

I have been in the golf business for over 40 years and it was late in my career when  I finally figured out something important. One of them is fairy dust and how it applies to golfers and the other is the truth about golf instruction.  I haven’t decided if nobody is aware of it or just chooses to ignore it.

Fairy Dust

Fairy dust is what I call natural talent or potential. I guess it could be described in a lot of different ways but I prefer to call it fairy dust because it doesn't apply only to golfers or just athletic ability.

 At birth everyone has fairy dust sprinkled on them in varying kinds and amounts. Sometimes it's in the form of athletic talent other times it may be in the form of musical talent or a great singing voice but certain individuals are just simply potentially more gifted than others.  They got more more fairy dust.

Truth

 The truth that nobody seems to be aware of is that we only get the fairy dust at birth. Nobody else has the ability to sprinkle it on us.  I think one reason golfers get so frustrated is they are often led to believe that with proper instruction or equipment there is no limit to how good they can become and this is a complete falsehood.  Saying that with proper teaching and enough lessons and practice any can become a scratch golfer is like saying with enough work and training everyone can be an accomplished musician, singer, or artist.

Unfortunately that just simply is not true.  When I was younger and played baseball and football I wanted to be able to run faster.  I learned that even with good athletic talent and hard work I could shave of a few tenths of a second off my speed but was never going to be able to run fast.  I didn’t get dusted with the speed potential at birth.

One of the things I did get was the power dust.  Even in little league I led the league in home runs and triples.  In golf I could hit the ball 300 yards as a teenager with balata golf balls and persimmon woods but even at that there were a few that got more of the dust than I did.  I don’t think you can learn it.  You are either born with it or you are not.  On average, most recreational golfers, according to Golf Digest, average somewhere around 195-205 yards with their drivers.

Research shows that most of them can improve by only around 11 percent .  That means 195 yards becomes 216 yards.  That is the amount of fairy dust they got at birth.  This unfortunate truth does not fit well in marketing of golf lessons and golf equipment but it is true nonetheless.  Any time averages are discussed there will be exceptions at both ends but the odds are against you.

The same is true with putting.  If you are a poor putter you can improve but only to a certain level.  If you don’t have the sprinkle of dust you will never be a great putter.

Have Fun

Golf is a wonderful game that can be played by all ages for a lifetime and anyone that has not tried is probably missing a wonderful experience.  The point here is to realize and accept your limitations but learn to have more fun doing it.

We hear all the time about lowering scores or hitting the ball better, etc. but how often do you hear anyone promising that you can have more fun.

For all but a very tiny percentage of people golf is just a hobby or a pastime like fishing or painting or many other things.  It is something you do for enjoyment.

Even if you can’t become a long hitter or a scratch player you can learn to have more fun while playing the game.

Think about what you enjoy the most in golf.  Surveys indicate hitting more good shots is more enjoyable for the average golfer but golf instruction seems to be fixated on shooting lower scores.

Which is more fun and gives you a bigger rush, shooting a lower score or hitting it stiff and making birdies and bragging to your buddies?  Since instruction seems to be fixed on scoring you are constantly being encouraged to hit to the middle of the green.  In a recent study it showed that golfers with handicaps in the 15 to 20 range only hit an average of slightly less than 4 greens a round.  If you are aiming at the middle of the green how many birdie putts will you have.  Unless you are a great putter the answer is none.

If you want to have more fun follow spots psychologist Dr. Bob Rotella’s advice.  Always pick a small, well defined target.  If you want to have more fun aim at the flag stick.  If you are successful you will have a short birdie putt.

Conclusion

We all have potential in some area and very few end up realizing their full potential .  I think that is the real point of golf instruction.  Helping people develop their potential and not building a perfect swing.  I also think we need to be honest with students and give them realistic expectations.

The talent we are born with is what we have.  Nobody can give us more later.

Once a player's knowledge level matches their talent level, more knowledge does not improve scoring or ball striking much.

Who Are Really the Best Teachers?

I was watching the golf tournament last weekend and kept seeing ads from Revolution Golf and the Golf Channel promoting how great their golf instructors are and it reminded me of a recent conversation I had.

In that discussion about golf instruction  it was pointed out to me that golf instruction is almost completely subjective.  All about marketing and taking peoples word for how good they are and how good their theories and methods are.

SUBJECTIVE EVIDENCE is evidence that you cannot evaluate -- you have to simply accept what the person says or reject it.

OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE is evidence you can examine and evaluate for yourself.

My friend, Judge Tinker, frequently talks about how few people are interested in taking golf lessons and how few golfers actually take them. I think there may be a correlation between that and SUBJECTIVE EVIDENCE.  Today's consumers tends to be very cynical so simply trying to market to them by saying trust me, I am better or trust me, I can help you isn't going to work with most people.

In the past golf professionals were held in much higher esteem than they seem to be today so what worked in the past may not work as well today especially with younger people.

With verifiable data would golfers tend to trust you more?

Is it possible that more people would be prone to take lessons if there was OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE to prove how good someone and their methods are?  With today's technology it seems to be very doable. It be a simple matter of using technology to establish a baseline for each student. Prior to the first lesson simply chart club head speed, smash factor, center line variance, carry distance etc. After 4 lessons do the readings again and compare them to the baseline readings. That would give objective evidence of how much a teacher can actually improve his or her students in 4 lessons. No debate, no simply proclaiming that you help everybody, it would just recording the facts.

I know that those people that are successful today are not interested in seeing anything change and I don't blame them.   It is like the old saying, “If it ain't broke don't fix it,” but for the younger teachers coming up and trying to get themselves established and build a clientele I would think that they would embrace the idea of objective evidence. I think it might have a very positive effect on the golfing public if someone can say here is the evidence that, x percent of the time my students improve by X percentage with only 1,2,3,4 lessons etc.

Can you imagine a Top 100 List based on OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE?  Might be interesting.

Has Golf Instruction Evolved in the Best Direction?

Here is a little food for thought for all the golfers out there and I know before I write this that a lot of my fellow professionals are probably not going to agree with this but that’s fine.  We are all entitled to our opinions and this just happens to be mine and it is my blog.

Over the years I have learned a great deal about the golf swing, how people learn it, and about helping people strike a golf ball effectively.  The one thing that I have found is that the more I learned the clearer and more simple it has all become.

Recently I have been involved in many conversations and debates on how a golf club should best be swung.  Invariably, sooner or later, it evolves into a discussion of positions and frequently includes pictures, videos, graphs, etc. in order to prove a point.

The Modern Premise

Golf instruction has evolved over the years and especially since the introduction of high speed photography.  With the most recent developments in technology it has accelerated.  We now even have scientist in disagreement.  The prevailing theory is that if we can break the swing of successful players down into small enough increments we can discover why they strike the ball so well and pass that information on.

My Conclusion

My conclusion, after years of research and personal experience as both a teacher and a player, is that great ball strikers didn’t become great ball strikers because of working on positions.  Those positions evolved as a result of  improving ball striking.

I think most can agree that Ben Hogan and Moe Norman could control ball flight as well or better than anyone.  In their pursuit of ball flight do you really think either of them said to them self “If I just work on achieving this position my ball flight will improve?”  I personally don’t think so, however, I do think that it is far more likely they would hit a shot and say “What does the club need to at impact to achieve the ball flight or shot that I want?”

That is how they ended up with two totally different swings that could both control the ball.

Bobby Jones summed it up very well in this statement:

"Apart from the intention to deliver the blow in a proper way, there is nothing more important to the golf swing than that it should have the qualities of smoothness and rhythm, and I can conceive of no reason why it should not possess both these qualities so long as it is not interfered with by the conscious effort to pass by rote through a series of prescribed positions."

My final conclusion is that we need to return to teaching ball striking and how to use the tool (club) and not concentrate so much on positions.  I have a pretty strong hunch that great teachers have always understood this with all levels of players.

Technology

I am not asking anyone to abandon technology.  There is some very good technology out there that is particularly useful in certain situations and can be used to reinforce what the student sees and feels.  All I am recommending is that we go back to teaching from a student centered impact backwards and stop teaching from an instructor centered club/body positions forward.


That is it from the cave for now.

Technology vs Range Balls

As an assistant one of my positions was working for one of the first Master Professionals that had been an assistant at Augusta National.  He told me an interesting story about Ben Hogan.

Starting in 1942 rubber was rationed so it became difficult to find quality golf balls.  Hogan handed him his practice bag and asked him to watch over it.  He said that in some cases his practice balls were better than what he played with.  He added that practicing with anything other than quality golf balls was a waste of time.  At his level that statement is true, for a beginner not so much.

Technology

That started me thinking about range balls which are very inconsistent and therefore the accuracy of any data obtained while hitting them is questionable.  I understand that with a launch monitor the club data such as AOA, path, club face, etc. would still be accurate but not the ball data.

When launch monitors are used for club fitting are quality balls also being used?

I understand that in a closed environment, like a hitting bay, the quality of the ball can be easily controlled but a green grass driving range is a different story.

All major brands of golf balls have different models and each model has different spin rates, trajectory, and ball speed.  The variance in range balls is much greater than that, even with new range balls.  It gets even worse as they get some age on them.

For the full report from Golf Digest CLICK HERE.

I know that some launch monitors have an algorithm that is supposed to compensate for range balls but that would only work if range balls were consistent which they aren’t.

Conclusion

The bottom line is that you can get a rough idea of solid contact, curvature and trajectory with range balls but that is about it.  If you are using a launch monitor to obtain accurate ball information or club fitting it would seem that it needs to be in conjunction with quality golf balls.

For the average golfer trying to obtain accurate yardage information on how far each club goes range balls are not going to get the job done.

The easiest way to accurately check your yardages is with a GPS device or a range finder on a relatively flat area of the golf course using the balls you normally play with.

One Professionals View On Teaching And Learning

One of my pet peeves is that older instructors that do not spend many thousands of dollars on technology because in their situation they don’t feel they have a need for it are considered by younger instructors that have invested small fortunes in the latest technology, seminars, and certifications to be dinosaurs and in some way less competent.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.

I am not anti-technology and have invested in it throughout my career WHEN I considered it useful to me.  I think that in certain circumstances technology can be a very useful tool.  For some reason it seems that if you are not a big advocate of the latest technology you are automatically labeled anti-technology which is not true for many teachers.

Medical Analogy

The one analogy that pops up over and over is the use of the medical profession which is generally ridiculous.  Just because I don’t own a Trackman or attend seminars on bio-kinetics it is often implied or stated that I can’t see the usefulness of an MRI scanner which is absurd and borders on stupid.

An MRI is an extremely useful piece of technology WHEN it is needed.  I think a launch monitor is an extremely useful piece of technology WHEN it is needed.  I do know that I do not want my local physician that I go to raising his rates so he can own an MRI machine.  I simply do not need an MRI scan when I go in for a checkup or a sore throat.  Nor do I need to own a very expensive piece of technology to help the vast majority of the students I work with.

If my doctor recommends an MRI for some reason I will be going to a facility that has one and I will be paying a premium for the visit.  I think something similar could work for golf instruction.

The Objective

The objective is to be able to help golfers improve as simply and quickly as possible.  If this can be done with little or no technology the teacher is very good at what he does.  If another chooses to depend heavily on technology and is able to help his students quickly then he is also very good at what he does.

The idea that traditional knowledge and teaching is out dated is sadly misguided.  It is like the “old” and “new” ball flight laws.  Saying the old ball flight rules are wrong and the new ball flight rules are right is ridiculous.  The laws of physics haven’t changed.  Actually neither is really accurate because there are too many variables that neither takes into account.

The fact is the old ones are very effective at explaining ball flight to the average golfer.  They are simple and easy to understand.  The new laws are much less simple.

In my forty years of teaching golf I have seen a lot of revolutionary ideas and technology come and go only to be replaced by something newer and “better.”

With that being said, from my perspective, time and resources are much better spent on studying and understanding how people learn and develop complex motor skills and learning how to communicate the acquired knowledge to the student in the best and most efficient way possible.

Human Nature

I do understand human nature well enough to know that if someone has invested a great deal of time in money in technology or anything else they simply have to justify that to themselves and are unable to consider any other possibility.

Technology has nothing to do with whether someone can teach or not.  You can have the latest equipment and a wall full of certifications and without good communications skills it is all meaningless.  If you don’t understand the science of how people learn you are working under a handicap.  It doesn’t mean that you cannot teach, it simply means it will probably take your students longer to make progress and your failure rate is likely to be higher.  I do have to admit that over the years I have met great instructors that instinctively understood how students learn and were born communicators but it is rare.

Conclusion

In conclusion, for me, it simply boils down to what a person finds useful.  For me what I find useful is knowledge of the rapidly advancing science of learning and the art of communications.   It does not make me superior in any way any more than technology or bio-mechanics makes anyone else superior in any way.

Science and Golf Instruction

I am definitely old school but I have always been fascinated by advances in science and technology that have the possibility to help me as a person or as a golf professional.  That is why I got into computers before they had hard drives and video when they were battling between VHS and Betamax.  It is also why I started studying neuroscience as it applies to how people learn.

I know many will not agree with what I am about to say and I understand that.  It is only my opinion, but I am fairly intelligent and have very accurate logic and BS filters.  Because of that I have come to this conclusion.

My Conclusion

Science and technology seems to have hijacked golf instruction.  Because of things like Doppler radar, 3-D, Biomechanics, etc. we have turned golf instruction into numbers, minute positions and body parts.

As a friend of mine, Mike Rubino, who is an attorney and avid student of the game said, “The scientist and so called experts of today have invented a whole new golf lexicon and proclaim that without a complete understanding of their jargon you can't possibly teach or learn golf correctly.”

Sadly even the scientist and PhD’s don’t agree with each other.  The major benefit of all this seems to be in selling seminars and certifications so golf professionals can learn how to use the new jargon and terms that have been invented.

When I read about this and listen to the comments a term comes to mind that best describes it.  The definition follows:

“Mental Masturbation: Pleasurable but unproductive mental activity; at least in the short-term. Sometimes people use a tool, language, or technique because it has ideas that stimulate or entertain their mind. It might not be "better", but one likes it because of the stimulation or challenge it provides.”

Having been in the business for a long time now I have seen these “going to revolutionize golf instruction” come and go on a regular basis always to be replaced by the next “great breakthrough” that doesn’t materialize.

When I got into the business many years ago it was all about teaching people to PLAY golf.  Somewhere along the way technology transformed it into focusing only on the golf swing.  It is now all about numbers, positions, body parts and terminology.

The end result is that today only one golfer out of seventeen will even consider taking a lesson.

I know this will offend those that have spend a great deal of time and money on technology and getting certified but is this what we should consider progress?  You decide.

That is my view from the Golf Cave

The Golf Industry Has Shot Itself in the Foot

Recently I have been reading a research paper by a major university on the state of the golf industry and it seems that a lot of the challenges golf faces today are self-inflicted.

The Factors Contributing to Golf's Problems:

• The over building of golf courses during the boom years of the 1990’s.

• The building of longer, harder and more expensive golf courses.

• The slow play created by longer, harder, real estate development type golf courses.

• The building golf courses on speculation and not on socioeconomic demand.

• The building of golf courses that never had a viable business plan and are now environmentally, economically, and socially unsustainable.

In other words, even without a recession the golf industry would still be in trouble because of the paradigm change that occurred in the 1990’s.

What we have today is a situation where almost 90 percent of the golf courses are public access and roughly 30 percent are financially healthy, about 30 percent are slightly profitable or close to breaking even, and around 30 percent that are likely go out of business.

What we do know:

• We know there are about 4300 golf courses on the market for sale today. 

• We know there are currently about 1600 golf courses operating under bankruptcy protection.

• We know golf courses need to book about 64% of available tee-times to break even. 

• We know 60% of the golf courses are booking 44% of their available tee-times.

The Good News:

Help is on the way.  A book will be released in the near future that will offer a smorgasbord of proven techniques for operating profitably and turning money losers into money makers.  It will also cover golf instruction from a standpoint the will make it of interest to both teaching professionals and golfer alike.  I have only had glimpses at the data but it is extremely impressive.  I can only imagine the time, effort and money that have been poured into this project.