CGTF vs CPGA

[golfyoda]

Any suggestions

[cdnputter]

Wow, you almost had me in your other post regarding Instruction. Now when you claim that your teaching methods are better than a CPGA pro, I have to wonder. I'll agree that not all golf pros are good teachers, and by the same example not all golf teachers are good pros.

I wonder if this thought you have that CGTF is better than CPGA the reason why you left Black Diamond's facility.....:confused:

[Bellyhungry]

This is unauthorized advertising, from what I've seen...

[cdnputter]

His previous thread is definitely advertising. This is trolling, imo.

[hogannut]

YOu can either teach/communicate or you can't and letters after your name are only as good as the person is. My instructor for example is not affiliated with EITHER group and is an exclent instructor.

THere are bad CPGA teachers and CGTF teachers. As a former CGTF member I can say the trade journals and extra upgrades available CAN make an average teacher good. As much as CPGA guys claim there training is better, it is really how you apply the knowledge and how you communicate to your students that determines your success as an instructor.

Particularily at the level that most local instructors teach. I can tell you right now that 99.9% of golfers with a handicap above 8-10 have errors in their setup as well as their swing. So even if you fix their swing their bad grip, or stance or ball position will mean they won't improve. Most single digit players could look at a 15 handicappers golf swing and see something wrong with it. It is how to communicate your observations AND what type of drills you assign the student that will determine whether or not you as the teacher will be able to help.

MOst teachers/coaches at the professional level are all about communication. This is what makes good coaches great.....like Scotty Bowman. Butch Harmon will not find very many mechanical errors in Phil's swing so his job is to convince Phil that a little change here or there will make him a better player. If and when the player no longer believes what is being said the teacher/student relationship is essentially over, like what happened with Tiger and Butch.

IMO....the affiliation wars between CPGA and CGTF is simply jockeying between the 2 organizations. Each has its pro's and con's and it is simply how well the individual instructor can communicate his/her observations and how can they give the correct advise to fix the flaws that determines whether or not they are a good instructor.

[Quest]

Well Said!! :clap:

[cdnputter]

Agreed, thank you hogannut.

[focal]

one of the things relating to ski/snowboard certification is insurance. I know when I went to get certified to teach, a big benefit was the liability issue with being associated with a group.

don't know what golf instruction or certification entails, but that's another area to consider than just pure teaching aspect.

with ski/snowboard, a lot of the process to get certified was on teaching styles and positive attitudes on HOW to teach. I noticed when I take lessons for different sports (swimming, tennis and golf), there are definitely key signs to show who has had this sort of "people skills" training. I find that with golf, most of the instructors I've come across do NOT have this training.

[hogannut]

one of the things relating to ski/snowboard certification is insurance. I know when I went to get certified to teach, a big benefit was the liability issue with being associated with a group.

don't know what golf instruction or certification entails, but that's another area to consider than just pure teaching aspect.

with ski/snowboard, a lot of the process to get certified was on teaching styles and positive attitudes on HOW to teach. I noticed when I take lessons for different sports (swimming, tennis and golf), there are definitely key signs to show who has had this sort of "people skills" training. I find that with golf, most of the instructors I've come across do NOT have this training.

THe CGTF certification was based on skiing, that much I can tell you. I have a problem when businesses use "insurance" as a reason to get certified. I don't know how much they touch on insurance in skiing but there is nothing in the CGTF program that makes you less of a liability in terms of the curriculum the instructor is exposed to. THe course is about becoming a golf instructor, not knowing what is considered "liable" regarding the facility you are working out of.

As someone who has also been involved in minor hockey I have grown to hate the word "insurance/liability". IMO....it is a buzzword used nowadays for a cash grab. I had to pay money last year to volunteer my time. In the minor hockey program they do touch on inusrance and what you can and can't do and how to protect yourself/league against lawsuits. Pretty sad reality for simply wanting to help out.

[cdnputter]

I have good friends in both the CGTF and CPGA, and I'll be honest certification is necessary. But to say that one is better than the other because of a one week course? Get serious here. Both are insured based on their active membership so that insurance thing is just like you said, cash grab.

I just completed a Level 1 referee's clinic 2 weeks ago, 3rd time doing this... I should just keep current, anyways, the instructors mentioned several times about liability.... "don't say this, refer anyone to the OMHA spokesperson", "don't touch a kid if they fall down, let the trainer handle it..." It's just nonsense that we have to volunteer our time and then could expect someone to try and ruin our charity by suing us? Ok so refs get paid, but is $15-20 worth the aggravation? We'll see!

[hogannut]

I have good friends in both the CGTF and CPGA, and I'll be honest certification is necessary. But to say that one is better than the other because of a one week course? Get serious here. Both are insured based on their active membership so that insurance thing is just like you said, cash grab.

I just completed a Level 1 referee's clinic 2 weeks ago, 3rd time doing this... I should just keep current, anyways, the instructors mentioned several times about liability.... "don't say this, refer anyone to the OMHA spokesperson", "don't touch a kid if they fall down, let the trainer handle it..." It's just nonsense that we have to volunteer our time and then could expect someone to try and ruin our charity by suing us? Ok so refs get paid, but is $15-20 worth the aggravation? We'll see!

Hey fellow stripes!!! I just came back this year from a 10 year hiatus. When I first started reffing you only had to certify for your level once, then they changed to it every year.....talk about a cash grab eh? IMO....it makes it WAYYYY harder to get higher levels because you essentially have to comit to 2 courses per year, not one. I have spent about $300 to get back into reffing, for new jersey's, pants, and cretification clinics and a total cash grab of $75 admin fee to the GTHL. However since my last stint they have raised the pay fairly decently, but they have also increased game times. When I did it last time the little guys were 3 - 10 minute periods, now they are 12 minutes, AND from bantam up there is a flood between the 2nd and 3rd period. However you go in for a 3 gamer now and you are walking out with between $75-$90 depending, so not to bad!

The GTHL was losing soooo many refs due to crappy pay and abuse that they increased the pay to be more competitive with the mens leagues, and have really cracked down on abuse from coaches and spectators.

THe "real" money in reffing is still in mens leagues though. 45 minute running clocks, no body contact and $25-$30 per game that are 1 hour INCLUDING the flood.

COME ON REF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:eek: ;) :help:

[cdnputter]

I am referring to my confidence as a teacher and that no letters will change my knowledge I have gained from reading and studying over 70 golf books as well as travelling to have lessons with some of the top teachers in the world. I debate with them as well, when they make me see a point I have learned a great deal from them. I have never said that one was better than the other. ( do your research) I pointed out the main differences for people to realize (as Hogan Nut does) that communication of knowledge is what makes a great teacher of anything. I don't need to explain myself but I have a few minutes to spare for you to ponder my new thoughts. Read them carefully so you do not pass judgement so quick next time on someone who really does know what he is talking about. I can only help those who listen and have an empty cup for me to fill.

I guess someone had a nerve touched by my comments. So I'll attempt to explain myself again. You make reference to the fact that a CPGA pro doesn't get graded on Teaching, not the whole truth actually. A CPGA Elite apprentice, which is the only way to get your full CPGA certification, has to complete 4 Teaching and Coaching Workshops.

As for the higher number a CGTF member must pass, it's the same number a CPGA Teaching Professional must also pass, 160 or lower over 2 rounds in a single day.

The difference in my view, is that to pass the CGTF course, it's a week long, with the playing test on the Friday. Whereas passing or obtaining your CPGA certification could take 3-5 years depending on the individual.

So, maybe the letters on anyone's business card don't mean a lot, who knows? I've been on quite a few practice tees with a CPGA pro who's a terrible teacher, same with CGTF pro's.

Maybe next time you shouldn't get your knickers in a knot, but actually offer some advice, rather than trolling for advertising.

Certification means nothing. It is only a tool to get you started. Yes the two differ. There is no teaching test for the CPGA, they go to seminars and never have a club in their hand or get tested by the guy doing the seminar. Reading a book would be the same. Yes the CGTF has a higher PAT score. That is because at the end of the week you do your teat with a million swing thoughts from the hours of classes you have done pertaining to the golf swing. You try to swing a club after hearing someone talk about the golfswing for 20 hours.

[dekker]

I am referring to my confidence as a teacher and that no letters will change my knowledge I have gained from reading and studying over 70 golf books as well as travelling to have lessons with some of the top teachers in the world. I debate with them as well, when they make me see a point I have learned a great deal from them. I have never said that one was better than the other. ( do your research) I pointed out the main differences for people to realize (as Hogan Nut does) that communication of knowledge is what makes a great teacher of anything. I really wished that my expansion of my schools could have remained at BD but I wasn't seeing a bright future their for me to travel that far for so few lessons. Great track though if you like a challenge. I don't need to explain myself but I have a few minutes to spare for you to ponder my new thoughts. Read them carefully so you do not pass judgement so quick next time on someone who really does know what he is talking about. I can only help those who listen and have an empty cup for me to fill.

Good golyoda-Excuse me! But the tone of your post makes this the most pompous piece of drivel I've witnessed on this forum yet!

[Jonesy13]

I have been on the fence in my decision to go get mt CGTF certifcation in the spring. My thinking has been that the CGTF certifaction is like getting a degree form a correponse course. I`m glad to see some people don`t care about the level of certifaction just the quality of the teacher/instructor

[hamiltonhacker]

Good golyoda-Excuse me! But the tone of your post makes this the most pompous piece of drivel I've witnessed on this forum yet!

:clap::clap::clap::clap::beer:

[TourIQ]

This was a past discussion I must comment on. David Leadbetter, Butch Harmon and Dave Pelz all top magazine rated teachers....all in top 10. None of these have ever been trained to teach ny the CGTF or CPGA or PGA.Hi golfyoda

Best coach in Canada I've seen had no professional credentials and the worst was a 20+ year CPGA Pro.

Do you find when you read 70 golf books that many contradict each other?

Is it better to go to a coach who teaches technique or feel [and why]?

[cdnputter]

Good golyoda-Excuse me! But the tone of your post makes this the most pompous piece of drivel I've witnessed on this forum yet!

Wheww, it wasn't just me that was thinking the same thing! Could confidence be confused with arrogance? nahhh......:shhh:

[hoganben]

I love reading TGN "posts". I like it when clubfitters come on and say that you don't need credentials to teach golf and when golf instructors come on and say you don't need credentials to make clubs.

CPGA's are simply trying to "professionalize" golf instruction. They want to make a good living at it. Is it really that hard to teach golf? Then again is it really that hard to be a dentist? I don''t know about you, but when my dentist shows me my x-ray I can tell where a cavity is as well as he can. Is it really that hard to be a doctor? I'd just send you for a test if I couldn't figure out what was making you ill -oh sorry, that's what they do now.

If people are complaining that CPGAs don't know how to teach after going through a 3-5 year program, then perhaps, the CPGA needs to improve how it "teaches" its own members. Or perhaps the problem is not that they can't teach, but that they want to change your swing to such a degree that you have to keep seeing them on a weekly basis. Just food for thought

[trunckslammer1]

I love reading TGN "posts". I like it when clubfitters come on and say that you don't need credentials to teach golf and when golf instructors come on and say you don't need credentials to make clubs.



Everyone has their own agenda. It is always Consumer Beware.

[Jonesy13]

Thanks GOLFTIME. I`m hoping to use it as a part time thing, and to help mt own game

[gunner21]

As for the higher number a CGTF member must pass, it's the same number a CPGA Teaching Professional must also pass, 160 or lower over 2 rounds in a single day.

I am a CPGA pro and can tell you this is incorrect....the number for a CPGA pro is 155 to get your apprentice card, then a minimum of 3 years under a full CLass A Head Professional.

I am not here to argue which association is better teachers.....there are great golf instructors in both associations, although you won't see a CGTF professinal coaching any olympic members, as Golf is an official sport, only CPGA members can become Team Canada coaches. Only CPGA professionals can become affiliated with Coaching Canada. CPGA professionals do have to be graded on their teaching techniques; in order to get your Class A, you need to have a Class A watch and mark your lesson.

I cannot comment on CGTF as I am not a member and do not fully know what they require. All I have heard is they simply take a 1 week course and they are certified.

Wishing everyone a great 2008 season.

[hogannut]

There is a playing test for CGTF. Similar to CPGA it is around high 70's, but only one round.

[tourdeep]

I guess someone had a nerve touched by my comments. So I'll attempt to explain myself again. You make reference to the fact that a CPGA pro doesn't get graded on Teaching, not the whole truth actually. A CPGA Elite apprentice, which is the only way to get your full CPGA certification, has to complete 4 Teaching and Coaching Workshops.

As for the higher number a CGTF member must pass, it's the same number a CPGA Teaching Professional must also pass, 160 or lower over 2 rounds in a single day.

The difference in my view, is that to pass the CGTF course, it's a week long, with the playing test on the Friday. Whereas passing or obtaining your CPGA certification could take 3-5 years depending on the individual.

So, maybe the letters on anyone's business card don't mean a lot, who knows? I've been on quite a few practice tees with a CPGA pro who's a terrible teacher, same with CGTF pro's.

Maybe next time you shouldn't get your knickers in a knot, but actually offer some advice, rather than trolling for advertising.

Certification means nothing. It is only a tool to get you started. Yes the two differ. There is no teaching test for the CPGA, they go to seminars and never have a club in their hand or get tested by the guy doing the seminar. Reading a book would be the same. Yes the CGTF has a higher PAT score. That is because at the end of the week you do your teat with a million swing thoughts from the hours of classes you have done pertaining to the golf swing. You try to swing a club after hearing someone talk about the golfswing for 20 hours.
The part about ingesting alot of material at one time is correct. During my week with the CGTF I watched alot of guys come in with great games and proved it on the course after class. But after a week of lessons, flaws and cures and the break down of ones own swing problems, these same people broke down by the end of the week. I watched alot of good players get information over load and when it came time to run what ya brung they were unable to perform. I watched some grown men have complete break downs on the couse and the range. I even had to do the Dr. Phil thing on the range and even had people knocking on my hotel room door looking for help.

I have respect for both CGTF and CPGA, but what I don't like is when people who have never put up good size chucks of cash and time to play for keeps talking like the PAT #'s are a joke. They are the people that say the local muni. with par @ 68 is to easy, then you see them play it and they never break par or get even close. Put a G-NOTE and a week of your time on the line and see how easy that PAT # is to beat.;)

BEN LAUSANNE CGTF

[golfpal]

It appears that they do daily morning classroom teachings and then after lunch they are divided into groups with the professional for hands on knowledge and methodology in a teaching environment. Then you work on fellow students with guidance to make you feel confident with your students. This runs from Sunday to Saturday. In that week you do a playing test for 2 rounds with 83 or less, 166 for combined days. This is from what I understand. You can also play and practice yourself at the range if you choose after the session.:hyper:

[tourdeep]

It appears that they do daily morning classroom teachings and then after lunch they are divided into groups with the professional for hands on knowledge and methodology in a teaching environment. Then you work on fellow students with guidance to make you feel confident with your students. This runs from Sunday to Saturday. In that week you do a playing test for 2 rounds with 83 or less, 166 for combined days. This is from what I understand. You can also play and practice yourself at the range if you choose after the session.:hyper:
TRUE. I was at the course for 12-13 hours a day.

[Copetown Woods]

To add my 2 cents to this topic ... I am the GM of our golf course. We have a gentlemen that is a CPGA Pro (retired) that has been with us since we opened, teaching 2 days a week. We have never gotten into doing any schools, or junior programs, simply because he is retired and does not want to do that any longer.

I wanted to be able to gain my CPGA status to be able to start running some junior programs, and offer more corporate packages that include group lessons. As it turns out, because I do not have a full time CPGA head professional on staff, I cannot even try to get into the CPGA. I spoke with the head of the CPGA and even he thinks it is a silly rule that turns facilities like ours away ... why would I hire a head pro to do a job I can do myself?

He told me that they would likely be changing the rules in the next couple of years, but I do not want to wait for that, so ... I went to FLorida for a week in November and took the certification course for the USGTF ... when I came home I contacted the CGTF and paid a few extra bucks and I now have a certificate for both the CGTF and USGTF.

My thoughts between the two ... the CPGA is more about becoming more rounded in the golf industry as a whole. Many of the courses you must take are about running a golf course ... events, merchandising etc. Obviously they have a large focus on teaching, but a CPGA Pro is more than a teacher. I have experience in all aspects of running a golf course ... by no means am I an expert on any part of it, but I have taken many courses, and do not need to worry about all of that.

CGTF is all about teaching. You defintely can not learn everything about teaching in one week, but you have to start somewhere. Myself, I am a 4 handicap and enjoy reading up on different aspects of teaching. I have never taught before, and do not plan on teaching scratch golfer, so I am going to start with kids and work my way up from there. In fact, starting in February I am going into 3 schools to volunteer my time to teach introductory golf lessons to students in grades 6 - 8. I will see about 1300 students by the time I am done. I feel this will get me on my way to becoming a better teacher.

All in all, I had no choice in the matter of what to take, but I think the CGTF status will be all I need to do what I am planning on doing.

[tourdeep]

I have always wanted to play Copetown. I was going to play a while back with some friends from the GLT when they came through, but had to pass. Congrats on your teaching cert.:)

[hogannut]

To add my 2 cents to this topic ... I am the GM of our golf course. We have a gentlemen that is a CPGA Pro (retired) that has been with us since we opened, teaching 2 days a week. We have never gotten into doing any schools, or junior programs, simply because he is retired and does not want to do that any longer.

I wanted to be able to gain my CPGA status to be able to start running some junior programs, and offer more corporate packages that include group lessons. As it turns out, because I do not have a full time CPGA head professional on staff, I cannot even try to get into the CPGA. I spoke with the head of the CPGA and even he thinks it is a silly rule that turns facilities like ours away ... why would I hire a head pro to do a job I can do myself?

He told me that they would likely be changing the rules in the next couple of years, but I do not want to wait for that, so ... I went to FLorida for a week in November and took the certification course for the USGTF ... when I came home I contacted the CGTF and paid a few extra bucks and I now have a certificate for both the CGTF and USGTF.

My thoughts between the two ... the CPGA is more about becoming more rounded in the golf industry as a whole. Many of the courses you must take are about running a golf course ... events, merchandising etc. Obviously they have a large focus on teaching, but a CPGA Pro is more than a teacher. I have experience in all aspects of running a golf course ... by no means am I an expert on any part of it, but I have taken many courses, and do not need to worry about all of that.

CGTF is all about teaching. You defintely can not learn everything about teaching in one week, but you have to start somewhere. Myself, I am a 4 handicap and enjoy reading up on different aspects of teaching. I have never taught before, and do not plan on teaching scratch golfer, so I am going to start with kids and work my way up from there. In fact, starting in February I am going into 3 schools to volunteer my time to teach introductory golf lessons to students in grades 6 - 8. I will see about 1300 students by the time I am done. I feel this will get me on my way to becoming a better teacher.

All in all, I had no choice in the matter of what to take, but I think the CGTF status will be all I need to do what I am planning on doing.

That is why I went with CGTF instead of CPGA. You will have to take a lot of initiative on your own to become a better and better instructor. CGTF gives you a very basic and simple background. However the teaching journals you receive are really, really good. One of the things I miss now that I am no longer a CGTF member is the quarterly teaching magazines. THey give not only teaching tips,but also marketing ideas how to grow your teaching business.

CPGA teaches you to operate a golf course, which you already know how to do, and their dues are pretty expensive.

IMO.....for you and your needs CGTF is the way to go. I have played a number of times at Copetown and your facility and staff have always been top notch in my books.

Being a golf teacher is an apprenticeship, that never ends, and as I have said in an earlier post you can't "learn" to communicate, you either can or you can't. Letters after your name are only as good as your comittment to your cause. Good luck!:)

[golfpal]

I am not sure how you can compare the two when CGTF is just a basic teaching course for a week on strickly learning basic teaching. This really doesn't give you much and from their you go on experience and your own knowledge and time in which takes experience and experience of years of teaching.

Where CPGA is years of commitment and time working from the bottom up and whether you are good are not the time is and the knowledge learned is from years of experience on the course and all the dealings, workings of a course and teaching as well. Not sure but one really can't be compared to another. If you don't have the time to put in years of hard work and long hours for CPGA than of course you can take the one week course and say I'm a teacher. But are you? Well you have the certification but knowledge wise years of experience in the industry might impress me a little more even if I have to look for the teacher that fits my needs. In both you may or may not find that or even without certification of a teacher at a course or range. But I wouldn't base any opinions on just certification, but personally I have alot of respect for someone that has put in 18 hour days or alot of hard work and years of building up their career over a person that takes a course for a week. I just think CPGA's don't get enough respect for a lot of hard work. Just because they are working in a sport environment. People tend to think it's a breeze and alot of fun.

Saying that for teaching only I would go on years of experience and the person you are dealing with suiting your personality. But I would want someone with time in.

[Noremac]

An introvert applies to become a CGTF teaching professional. After one week of class and a PAT, he receives certification.

Another applicant applies to become a CPGA professional. He is mentored for 3 years and gains real life experience from various personalities from all aspects of life. Because of his experience, he/she communicates very well with the golf course’s customers.

Who do you think will succeed at teaching? The one who’s better at communicating or the one who isn’t?

Yes, I am using extreme examples. However, the moral of the story isn’t whether the teacher has this certification or that certification. It’s the ability of the teacher that matters. When is the last time somebody asked Butch Harmon or David Bedwetter whether they belong to the PGA of America?

I'll always remember a quote I heard, "Hacks teaching hacks." When you walk up and down the range on a busy day, just remember this quote.

[hogannut]

An introvert applies to become a CGTF teaching professional. After one week of class and a PAT, he receives certification.

Another applicant applies to become a CPGA professional. He is mentored for 3 years and gains real life experience from various personalities from all aspects of life. Because of his experience, he/she communicates very well with the golf course’s customers.

Who do you think will succeed at teaching? The one who’s better at communicating or the one who isn’t?

Yes, I am using extreme examples. However, the moral of the story isn’t whether the teacher has this certification or that certification. It’s the ability of the teacher that matters. When is the last time somebody asked Butch Harmon or David Bedwetter whether they belong to the PGA of America?

I'll always remember a quote I heard, "Hacks teaching hacks." When you walk up and down the range on a busy day, just remember this quote.

Teaching is only an aspect of what the CPGA does. Teaching is important as a CPGA apprentice, but so is being able to run a pro shop, and the CPGA program teaches you that too.

It is not fair to CGTF instructors when you assume that a week long course will not make them good instructors. IF the person was not a good communicator and/or did not try to better their skills on their own after the course then you would have a point. However, the flip side is just because you work in a pro shop for 3 years it doesn't automatically make you a good instructor. THere are many CPGA guys who are lousy teachers, because they simply don't enjoy doing it for whatever reason. Maybe they are great guys for running the shop, or setting up tee times (which are important aspects of running a successful golf operation) but having CPGA beside your name doesn't automatically make you better than someone who has CGTF beside their name.

My instructor has NO accreditations to his name, but is the best golf teacher I have ever had. His experience is that of a professional mini-tour player and a former Canadian Tour player. He could beat many of the local CPGA guys. Point is, credentials are great as long as they are applied correctly.

As many of us know there are many university grads out there that in the real world are pretty useless. In fact if you look at the most successful people in the world many of them have NO credentials. Bill Gates is a drop out, Einstein failed grade 3 twice, and the Wright brothers had no engineering backgrounds.:hush: :shhh:

[Noremac]

Teaching is only an aspect of what the CPGA does. Teaching is important as a CPGA apprentice, but so is being able to run a pro shop, and the CPGA program teaches you that too.

It is not fair to CGTF instructors when you assume that a week long course will not make them good instructors. IF the person was not a good communicator and/or did not try to better their skills on their own after the course then you would have a point. However, the flip side is just because you work in a pro shop for 3 years it doesn't automatically make you a good instructor. THere are many CPGA guys who are lousy teachers, because they simply don't enjoy doing it for whatever reason. Maybe they are great guys for running the shop, or setting up tee times (which are important aspects of running a successful golf operation) but having CPGA beside your name doesn't automatically make you better than someone who has CGTF beside their name.

My instructor has NO accreditations to his name, but is the best golf teacher I have ever had. His experience is that of a professional mini-tour player and a former Canadian Tour player. He could beat many of the local CPGA guys. Point is, credentials are great as long as they are applied correctly.

As many of us know there are many university grads out there that in the real world are pretty useless. In fact if you look at the most successful people in the world many of them have NO credentials. Bill Gates is a drop out, Einstein failed grade 3 twice, and the Wright brothers had no engineering backgrounds.:hush: :shhh:

Agree with you 100%. What it boils down to is the individual and not the title which is what I was trying to get at.

[hogannut]

Agree with you 100%. What it boils down to is the individual and not the title which is what I was trying to get at.

Sorry if I misinterpretted your post.

[hoganben]

To add my 2 cents to this topic ... I am the GM of our golf course. We have a gentlemen that is a CPGA Pro (retired) that has been with us since we opened, teaching 2 days a week. We have never gotten into doing any schools, or junior programs, simply because he is retired and does not want to do that any longer.

I wanted to be able to gain my CPGA status to be able to start running some junior programs, and offer more corporate packages that include group lessons. As it turns out, because I do not have a full time CPGA head professional on staff, I cannot even try to get into the CPGA. I spoke with the head of the CPGA and even he thinks it is a silly rule that turns facilities like ours away ... why would I hire a head pro to do a job I can do myself?

He told me that they would likely be changing the rules in the next couple of years, but I do not want to wait for that, so ... I went to FLorida for a week in November and took the certification course for the USGTF ... when I came home I contacted the CGTF and paid a few extra bucks and I now have a certificate for both the CGTF and USGTF.

My thoughts between the two ... the CPGA is more about becoming more rounded in the golf industry as a whole. Many of the courses you must take are about running a golf course ... events, merchandising etc. Obviously they have a large focus on teaching, but a CPGA Pro is more than a teacher. I have experience in all aspects of running a golf course ... by no means am I an expert on any part of it, but I have taken many courses, and do not need to worry about all of that.

CGTF is all about teaching. You defintely can not learn everything about teaching in one week, but you have to start somewhere. Myself, I am a 4 handicap and enjoy reading up on different aspects of teaching. I have never taught before, and do not plan on teaching scratch golfer, so I am going to start with kids and work my way up from there. In fact, starting in February I am going into 3 schools to volunteer my time to teach introductory golf lessons to students in grades 6 - 8. I will see about 1300 students by the time I am done. I feel this will get me on my way to becoming a better teacher.

All in all, I had no choice in the matter of what to take, but I think the CGTF status will be all I need to do what I am planning on doing.

There are a lot of interesting points in this "thread". It has also raised some questions.

1/ Should I pay someone $75 or so for a lessons when they have put 7 days into their career? Talk about commitment. I have spent more time cutting my lawn. Maybe, I could become a greenskeeper.

2/ Are we idiots for paying $75 for a golf lesson when it requires a week (or less) for someone to gain enough knowledge to teach you? How hard is it? A CGTF could take their 20 hours or so of CGTF instruction and teach a golfer for an hour a week for a year. Would he run out of things to teach after 20 weeks (just kidding)?

3/ Should I pay someone who plays a little better than me $75 for a lesson?

4/ Should a golf course (I won't say Copetown Woods because it is brave of you to be involved in TGN when you work at a course) charge $75 for a lesson given by an employee with 1 week of training. How long are McDonald's employees trained for? Maybe, those Big Macs should be $20.

5/ I am still even wondering about the "playing" requirements". You have to be able to shoot an 83. I know one guy says that it is hard to do when your $1000 is on the line, however with many of these guys it would be "daddy's" money. It seems that you only need to have an eight handicap (perhaps higher) prior to the playing test. I guess it's like McMaster letting women into their Medical school with only a 70% average (oops, they did/do).

6/ I am not sure if I remember anyone saying if you have to "pass" the courses on golf instruction. Do you just listen/participate and get a sticker?

7/ Not saying that I agree with the CPGA, but they would probably have wanted you to have taken your many golf course GM courses with them. Didn't the GM's used to be CPGA pros? Now, it could just be the nephew of the owner (who has taken some mysterious courses on who-knows-what). I assume that the CPGA feels that courses will only hire retired CPGA pros for 2 days a week if part of the role of the CPGA pro is given to unqualified GM's etc. I am guessing that they are just trying to protect CPGA jobs. They want their members to be able to find full time employment.
.
PS -Hogannut -As many of us know there are many university grads out there that in the real world are pretty useless. There are also many more non-university grads who are really useless (brilliant in their own minds -otherwise they would have a degree, or two, or three, I guess)
Not trying to start an argument-just thinking outloud

[goshawk]

There are a lot of interesting points in this "thread". It has also raised some questions.

1/ Should I pay someone $75 or so for a lessons when they have put 7 days into their career? Talk about commitment. I have spent more time cutting my lawn. Maybe, I could become a greenskeeper.

2/ Are we idiots for paying $75 for a golf lesson when it requires a week (or less) for someone to gain enough knowledge to teach you? How hard is it? A CGTF could take their 20 hours or so of CGTF instruction and teach a golfer for an hour a week for a year. Would he run out of things to teach after 20 weeks (just kidding)?

3/ Should I pay someone who plays a little better than me $75 for a lesson?

4/ Should a golf course (I won't say Copetown Woods because it is brave of you to be involved in TGN when you work at a course) charge $75 for a lesson given by an employee with 1 week of training. How long are McDonald's employees trained for? Maybe, those Big Macs should be $20.

5/ I am still even wondering about the "playing" requirements". You have to be able to shoot an 83. I know one guy says that it is hard to do when your $1000 is on the line, however with many of these guys it would be "daddy's" money. It seems that you only need to have an eight handicap (perhaps higher) prior to the playing test. I guess it's like McMaster letting women into their Medical school with only a 70% average (oops, they did/do).

6/ I am not sure if I remember anyone saying if you have to "pass" the courses on golf instruction. Do you just listen/participate and get a sticker?

7/ Not saying that I agree with the CPGA, but they would probably have wanted you to have taken your many golf course GM courses with them. Didn't the GM's used to be CPGA pros? Now, it could just be the nephew of the owner (who has taken some mysterious courses on who-knows-what). I assume that the CPGA feels that courses will only hire retired CPGA pros for 2 days a week if part of the role of the CPGA pro is given to unqualified GM's etc. I am guessing that they are just trying to protect CPGA jobs. They want their members to be able to find full time employment.
.
PS -Hogannut -As many of us know there are many university grads out there that in the real world are pretty useless. There are also many more non-university grads who are really useless (brilliant in their own minds -otherwise they would have a degree, or two, or three, I guess)
Not trying to start an argument-just thinking outloud
Not trying to respond to an argument, just thinking outloud as well.

We all know that it takes a lot more than 70 hours at a course, anybody's course, to be a "qualified" instructor. We also know that you don't have to be a touring pro (+ handicaip) to be able to teach. One of the pieces of advise I got from my step-son's instructor when I told her I was thinking about becoming an instructor was this: if you do and put in the effort to better yourself as an instructor, your golf game will suffer. She was right....I've gone from a 4 to a 9 handicap, just because I don't have time to devote to keeping my own game in order.
Just speaking from personal experience, there were a couple of people in the class that I took who I wouldn't take lessons from. Not because I didn't think they weren't competent, but because I didn't feel they had any idea how to talk to and deal with people.
We weren't lectured to all day. We had lessons in the morning, then practiced on each other and the 3 Master-level instructors in the afternoon. We didn't just have to pass a PAT ot be certified, we also had a written test as well as a practical test with the instructors that had to be passed as well.
As far as the PAT, I passed it but not easily. If someone has never played competative golf, they haven't had to play under pressure yet. If you don't pass the PAT, you don't get certified, That's pressure and it's not an easy thing for ordinary people to get past. I watched several single diigt hdcp golfers almost fold under the pressure. They scored low 70's every day during practice, but on the 2 days when it counted some were just on the line of passing.
Should you pay $75 for lessons from someone who was trained to run a golf course but doesn't know how to deal with people, or teach? That's entirely up to the individual. If you find an instructor who helps you with your game and is knowledgeable and you get along with them like old friends, who cares which initials are on their business card?

[hoganben]

I have a funny feeling that you might be a fun person to take lessons from. I have a feeling that there wouldn't be too much BS involved in your lessons. I was wondering about the high cost of lessons themselves -not just from CGTF instructors, but CPGA as well. I don't really care what the initials are on the card. I just hope the organizations ensure that their pros can really teach -for what we are charged for lessons. Oops, I should have said $88, not $75.

[goshawk]

If a lesson isn't fun, you could get the same thing by mailing in a tape of your swing and getting an answer via e-mail!! Afterall, this is a game we're talking about. It's SUPPOSED to be FUN!

[tourdeep]

Not trying to respond to an argument, just thinking outloud as well.

We all know that it takes a lot more than 70 hours at a course, anybody's course, to be a "qualified" instructor. We also know that you don't have to be a touring pro (+ handicaip) to be able to teach. One of the pieces of advise I got from my step-son's instructor when I told her I was thinking about becoming an instructor was this: if you do and put in the effort to better yourself as an instructor, your golf game will suffer. She was right....I've gond from a 4 to a 9 handicap, just because I don't have time to devote to keeping my own game in order.
Just speaking from personal experience, there were a couple of people in the class that I took who I wouldn't take lessons from. Not because I didn't think they weren't competent, but because I didn't feel they had any idea how to talk to and deal with people.
We weren't lectured to all day. We had lessons in the morning, then practiced on each other and the 3 Master-level instructors in the afternoon. We didn't just have to pass a PAT ot be certified, we also had a written test as well as a practical test with the instructors that had to be passed as well.
As far as the PAT, I passed it but not easily. If someone has never played competative golf, they haven't had to play under pressure yet. If you don't pass the PAT, you don't get certified, That's pressure and it's not an easy thing for ordinary people to get past. I watched several single diigt hdcp golfers almost fold under the pressure. They scored low 70's every day during practice, but on the 2 days when it counted some were just on the line of passing.
Should you pay $75 for lessons from someone who was trained to run a golf course but doesn't know how to deal with people, or teach? That's entirely up to the individual. If you find an instructor who helps you with your game and is knowledgeable and you get along with them like old friends, who cares which initials are on their business card?
WOW!!! I'm glad you typed this, that way I didn't have to!! This is like the OEM/Componet debate!!! F#$& ME!!! At the end of the day everyone knows that it's not whats writen on the bottom of the club, but wether it works! And to all around here who THINK & ASSUME, go get a lesson from each and find out!! Don't assume!! Or go and put up your time and money and play for keeps, do a PAT, play the GLT, make it count! Until then you can THINK about it and ASSUME it's easy.;)

[Copetown Woods]

7/ Not saying that I agree with the CPGA, but they would probably have wanted you to have taken your many golf course GM courses with them. Didn't the GM's used to be CPGA pros? Now, it could just be the nephew of the owner (who has taken some mysterious courses on who-knows-what). I assume that the CPGA feels that courses will only hire retired CPGA pros for 2 days a week if part of the role of the CPGA pro is given to unqualified GM's etc. I am guessing that they are just trying to protect CPGA jobs. They want their members to be able to find full time employment.

Who is the CPGA to decide if myself, or any other person in my position in unqualified to be a GM? After speaking with the head of the CPGA, I don't exactly think that is how they feel, seeing as he told me that if he could change the policies about getting your card.

Its not like I am just some guy who works in a different industry and does this on the side. I have run a golf course for five years, and will run this same golf course until the day I die ... I am just trying to not only better myself by getting into teaching, but it will better our golf course by offering more services, and starting a junior program which is key if we want to be in this for the long term.

I am not going ot be charging $75, or even close to that. I likely will not even offer private lessons this year, and will work with more kids groups until I feel I am ready to teach people individually. I have met a few people that get their certification and want to teach right away to make money, and that is just plain stupid and selfish.

I know you likely weren't aiming most of those comments at me ... but I seemed to fit that mold you were talking about.

[goshawk]

I am not going ot be charging $75, or even close to that. I likely will not even offer private lessons this year, and will work with more kids groups until I feel I am ready to teach people individually. I have met a few people that get their certification and want to teach right away to make money, and that is just plain stupid and selfish.
Barry, I applaud your decision. I, too, think it's very unfair for someone to start charging premium prices for lessons 1 week after getting their certification, regardless of where it came from. How can an instructor think of himself/herself as being knowledgeable and experienced after a week on the job? I look it as a police officer thinking he should be a detective 1 week out of the academy!
I did something similar to what you're planning. I volunteered my time for the first season helping kids at a local school and observing several "seasoned" instructors at different ranges, along with a ton of reading. I still tend to watch other instructors to see if I can pick up something new or improve something that I'm doing. If you don't continue to try to learn, stop teaching because no one knows everything about teaching.

[hogannut]

Barry, I applaud your decision. I, too, think it's very unfair for someone to start charging premium prices for lessons 1 week after getting their certification, regardless of where it came from. How can an instructor think of himself/herself as being knowledgeable and experienced after a week on the job? I look it as a police officer thinking he should be a detective 1 week out of the academy!
I did something similar to what you're planning. I volunteered my time for the first season helping kids at a local school and observing several "seasoned" instructors at different ranges, along with a ton of reading. I still tend to watch other instructors to see if I can pick up something new or improve something that I'm doing. If you don't continue to try to learn, stop teaching because no one knows everything about teaching.

I agree. First of all by offering low priced junior clinics you are promoting your business as one that also helps the community, which enhances your reputation as a business owner. Secondly you are getting people out to your facility, so maybe mom and dad go play 9 holes while little Johnny has his clinic. THere are other ways of making $ than to try to get the most out of every customer who goes through your operation. MANY businesses these days either fail or have bad reputations because of thinking like that. The game of golf will hopefully provide you with a great life both financially and emotionally, so giving your time back to it is really an investment in yourself.

Also as you get more experience and go to private instruction you can promote new instructors within your facility to run other programs for less pay, but to gain experience, which is also a contrubution to the game.

I could go and ref mens hockey for more $ and way less hassle in terms of getting yelled at by coaches and fans/parents, but I enjoy and prefer reffing the kids. I put some $ in my pocket and feel like I'm giving something back to the game.

I applaud you to Barry! Way to go man!:)

[swingeasyguy]

ILike many of you, my 2 best teachers ever had NO cerifitcations. Neither association is perfect, CPGA students focus more time learning abuot pro shop management, etc. and some good learnings occur at the CGTF course. But here's the worrisome part about the CGTF PAT's that most don't know and is not talked about: if you fail the PAT's, you can go play with your friends and as long as you mail in 2 signed scorecards at the local muni that's over 6000 yards you get your certificate. This policy should be changed so the PAT's have to be passed that week, 2 rounds , not 1 by the way. But in the end, as you guys and gals all know, it IS about how to asses what is right and wrong with the pupil and what to correct and how. And as you also know teaching can be extremely dangerous. I am scared about the new breed of teacher today, who, with his video camera, would change the young current Trevinos, Floyds, Thorpes, Furyks, Nicklaus (sorry Jack, too upright, get with the Hogan program or you'll never make it) into swing robots. I have been at ranges and asked many many teachers for a quick coment on my swing and many are scary, so many different opinions. My own teacher, Craig Harmon, knows I don't have the prettiest swing and there are some flaws, but the results are pretty repeatable, so he works on one simple, non technical, non video taped swing adjustment...always something incredibly simple, never technical. (I just realized I'm rambling...sorry)
In the end it's about finding a teacher whose students really consistently improve!
Good night

[TourIQ]

I am not sure how you can compare the two when CGTF is just a basic teaching course for a week on strickly learning basic teaching. This really doesn't give you much and from their you go on experience and your own knowledge and time in which takes experience and experience of years of teaching. Where CPGA is years of commitment and time working from the bottom up and whether you are good are not the time is and the knowledge learned is from years of experience on the course and all the dealings, workings of a course and teaching as well. Not sure but one really can't be compared to another. If you don't have the time to put in years of hard work and long hours for CPGA than of course you can take the one week course and say I'm a teacher. But are you? Well you have the certification but knowledge wise years of experience in the industry might impress me a little more even if I have to look for the teacher that fits my needs. I just think CPGA's don't get enough respect for a lot of hard work. Just because they are working in a sport environment. People tend to think it's a breeze and alot of fun.Many CPGA's DON'T GET ANY RESPECT because they are TOTAL HACKS, even with their 30+ years of experience. The 1st coach my son had for his first 2.5 years of playing golf almost ruined his swing and game until we figured out he knew SH*T. His 2nd coach with NO accreditations to his name, took him from a 14 to a 4 handicap with 5 single lessons spread over 4 months. His 2nd coach also coached a guy on the PGA Tour who had 2 victories, but no credentials to his name to formally teach the game. Years of experience is not worth the paper its written on if what the Hack teaches is wrong or misguided for the student.

[swingeasyguy]

One more thing...did someone make the remark that CPGA graduates learn to communicate and become well equpped to become people persons? How many golf courses do you play at where the staff are really warm and friendly? Is it just me or do so many golf establishments still think they're doing me a favour as I shell out 85 bucks to play? Can I at least get a smile from some of these people who trained for 5 years?

Swing Easy Guy

[TourIQ]

Let me add 1 more point. The stronger your game by virtue of either your handicap level or stroke average the FEWER COACHES exist who can actually take your game to an improved state :eek:

[Frank101]

I've worked around/with MANY cpga pros, and not to say anything bad about them, but there was only one who took his job seriously that I could say was actually good.

Courses don't do anything, neither does experience working as a CPGA pro. True teaching professionals are far and few between. I'd say 90% of teaching pros won't tell me something I don't already know.

Also, playing well does not = teaching well. I wouldn't care how well my teacher plays, I want him to know the swing inside out and how to fix/improve my game.

How good a teacher you are has nothing to do with schooling, how good you play or how long you've worked as a CPGA pro and has everything to do with passion.

[hoganben]

Italfrank, TouriQ and Swingeasyguy make great points. It is so hard to find a good golf pro. Then again, Butch Harmon and David Leadbetter have screwed up a lot of pros swings.

PS -"His 2nd coach with NO accreditations to his name, took him from a 14 to a 4 handicap with 5 single lessons spread over 4 months." I am always suspicious that most, if not all, pros/coaches just want to string you along for a lesson or two a week for 2 or 3 years.

[dekker]

Let me add 1 more point. The stronger your game by virtue of either your handicap level or stroke average the FEWER COACHES exist who can actually take your game to an improved state :eek:

Like Trevino said.

[hoganben]

Like Trevino said.

I know the the Trevino quote.

PS -Trevino did a nice job "coaching" George Lopez prior to the Bob Hope -Lopez won the team event. Maybe Trevino could help some of the PGA pros to better stand up to Tiger. Trevino loved to beat Nicklaus.

[cfgolfer]

Totaly agree.
There are many great teachers out there an they have no CPGA status. Even in the PTGAA and the CGTF the PAT test is the same as the CPGA program. But the difference is tha the PTGAA and the CGTF just want to teach with non of the Bull S%#@* that goes with being a CPGA.

[TourIQ]

I'd say 90% of teaching pros won't tell me something I don't already know. Also, playing well does not = teaching well. How good a teacher you are has nothing to do with schooling, how good you play or how long you've worked as a CPGA pro and has everything to do with passion.italfrank, you nailed it ... spot on :D

His 2nd coach with NO accreditations to his name, took him from a 14 to a 4 handicap with 5 single lessons spread over 4 months." I am always suspicious that most, if not all, pros/coaches just want to string you along for a lesson or two a week for 2 or 3 years.hoganben, we [fb and I] have a strategy that goes against the grain of salt or advise given by the late H. Penick. Harvey Penick said even great players can only comprehend 1 think at a time / lesson.

When fb went to a new coach we both wanted to know the good and the bad from the very 1st visit. Lay it all out on the table, and don't spoon feed us. Then fb outside of the lesson can mull over, think, evaluate, etc. the advise given and priortize the changes in the order which makes sense to him. When he goes back then it is to evaluate what he has learned + ingrained, and if his swing now has fewer faults [ie - technically more sound].

We never wanted a teaching pro to string us along. He got a new coach once / 2 years to suck out new knowledge. It was generally easy to tell if a coach knew much after the 1st lesson, without wasting more $'s.

[swingeasyguy]

Actually Hogannut makes a good point too: How many teachers string you along so you won't get good too fast. Sounds like chiropractors! Believe me I hate to say it but it's true. I know as a teacher I've had many conversations with other teachers and I've been given advice by many not to be too good, cause I want my students coming back and taking lots of lessons. "Its a business and you have to treat it like one" I've been told. This is of course very sad. But I don't honestly believe it's prevalent though. The other question some of you should be asking is, why do teachers charge you more for video lessons? To pay for the camera? Actually they should be charging less, since they sit on their butts instead of standing with you and showing you how to swing. Think about it. If video cost an extra $1000 it's a long term investment and I don't believe students should be paying for it. And how long do are you supposed to pay for it? (think toll bridges) Just my personal beliefs.

Swing Easy Guy

[Golftime]

Actually Hogannut makes a good point too: How many teachers string you along so you won't get good too fast. Sounds like chiropractors! Believe me I hate to say it but it's true. I know as a teacher I've had many conversations with other teachers and I've been given advice by many not to be too good, cause I want my students coming back and taking lots of lessons. "Its a business and you have to treat it like one" I've been told. This is of course very sad. But I don't honestly believe it's prevalent though. The other question some of you should be asking is, why do teachers charge you more for video lessons? To pay for the camera? Actually they should be charging less, since they sit on their butts instead of standing with you and showing you how to swing. Think about it. If video cost an extra $1000 it's a long term investment and I don't believe students should be paying for it. And how long do are you supposed to pay for it? (think toll bridges) Just my personal beliefs.

Swing Easy Guy
THe logic for charging more for a lesson with video is that the student will learn faster because they now have another method of understanding what they are currently doing. They get more benefit thus it is worth more. The good teacher doesn't just show the video and let the student figure it out, they have to actively participate by showing the good things and also what can be improved. The same logic can be applied to any costly technical tool such as launch monitors.

[swingeasyguy]

If what you say re video teaching is true then those using it aren't using it properly. Frankly I get at least 30 new students every spring who went to winter programs where theywere subjected to moniters and imaginary swing plane lines drqwn on screens and came to me with poor grips, posture, and honestly had little idea how to swing a club. If this is where teaching is going I want no part of it. Video can be useful for better players, but in a very limited way. My opinion and I'm very staunch about it is that although video teaching is sexy, hands on instruction will always be far far superior.

Swing Easy Guy

[Golftime]

If what you say re video teaching is true then those using it aren't using it properly. Frankly I get at least 30 new students every spring who went to winter programs where theywere subjected to moniters and imaginary swing plane lines drqwn on screens and came to me with poor grips, posture, and honestly had little idea how to swing a club. If this is where teaching is going I want no part of it. Video can be useful for better players, but in a very limited way. My opinion and I'm very staunch about it is that although video teaching is sexy, hands on instruction will always be far far superior.

Swing Easy Guy
I agree with you in that an instructor must not become overly reliant on technology. You must constanly keep an eye on the basics such as grip, posture, alignment. I have seen students who have made good progress and even shot career rounds when they come back for a checkup have regressed on the basics. It is a bit like the help desk checklist. The first question is very often, "Is it plugged in?".
The thing that I like about video and launch monitors is that they don't lie. You can tell someone that they have a short (or Long) backswing and often they won't agree, because it doesn't feel short to them. Show the video and they get it.
So the bottom line is, use it but don't over use it!

[hoganben]

I meant to say that you were lucky to find a pro who would help you so much in 4 lessons. Then I should have added my point about most of them wanting to string you along. I like your idea of getting them to lay it all on the table-good, and bad. But, I guess swingeasyguy might say that the pro might be afraid that you would just try to fix things on your own without coming back for more lessons. You would think that pros would want to help you improve quickly so you would want to keep coming back. Maybe pros find that once people get to a certain comfort level with their game they are unwilling to pay for more lessons. I would have thought people would be motivated to lower]their handicaps even more.

Ps -it seems to me that when people ask for the names of "good" golf pros to work with, that the list is always only 2 or 3 names long. It seems to me too, that when I meet someone who has taken lessons, that they say that they didn't improve. The guys I meet who are currently taking lessons always seem to be hitting it all over the planet. It is just what I have found personally.

Some guys have mentioned that they have had good instructors who have had no "credentials". I guess that credentials might not be as important in golf for instructors who have played the game for years at a very high level. Butch Harmon, Dave Pelz and Leadbetter (I think) did not go through the PGA system, and have no PGA "credentials". Just a thought, but are there CPGA pros kicking around Ontario that have a reputation for teaching PGA pros? Could I go to the guy who teaches (or taught) Weir etc?

[TourIQ]

I wonder what the % of coaches have to review the video and draw the
lines before they can tell you what is technically wrong with your swing?

[goshawk]

I wonder what the % of coaches have to review the video and draw the
lines before they can tell you what is technically wrong with your swing?
Harry, I have a different question. I was wondering just what % of STUDENTS felt the need to have video to "verify" what the instructor is trying to get them to do?

[TourIQ]

Harry, I have a different question. I was wondering just what % of STUDENTS felt the need to have video to "verify" what the instructor is trying to get them to do?Hi Lionel

I cannot vouch for the general populus, but for Duane and I the answer is 0%. He got to '0'/scratch before his 1st [and only] video analysis. This was 4 to 5 years ago and his last coaching session, a trip to Rob Akins [longtime coach to David Toms] from Memphis, TN. Rob told him his 2 faults after only being withness to 2 full swings then fb corrected the 2 faults [using no video] with 20 minutes of range work. An hour later they went inside the Akins Studio and taped the before and after with the lines on the tv screen. 2 games after the swing change he would shoot a personal best '66' in a local tournament.

I did ask Rob how he seen the 2 faults so quickly and he said this is what I do for a living. fb is swinging over 110 mph but I see it frame-by-frame in my mind in slow motion. We always seeked an instructor who could pick out the wrong fundamentals or swing faults without having to first see it again on video.

Duane always used the true flight of the ball to "verify" what the instructor is trying to get him to do, and almost never hitting into a net. If it resulted in improvement to ball striking then he kept it, if not it was dumped or shelved real fast. No coaching advise was every accepted as being gospel, and each change was simply evaluated as to dispersion and/or distance.

I laugh when I see new instructors do the video and do a side-by-side comparison to Tiger Woods, and from this pick out the changes to work on.

[hoganben]

Duane always used the true flight of the ball to "verify" what the instructor is trying to get him to do, and almost never hitting into a net. If it resulted in improvement to ball striking then he kept it, if not it was dumped or shelved real fast. No coaching advise was every accepted as being gospel, and each change was simply evaluated as to dispersion and/or distance.

Interesting points around "dump[ing]" or "shelv[ing]" things that didn't seem to work. Most (from what I've seen) instructors have a hissy-fit if you don't do everything exactly like they want you to, even if it doesn't seem to work (despite a lot of range time etc).

[Golftime]

Hi Lionel

I laugh when I see new instructors do the video and do a side-by-side comparison to Tiger Woods, and from this pick out the changes to work on.
This comment I agree with. Comparing the average player to Tiger does them no good. They have neither the physical capability to do what he does nor the time to learn it well.

Harry, I have a different question. I was wondering just what % of STUDENTS felt the need to have video to "verify" what the instructor is trying to get them to do?
What did you mean by 'verify' in this context? It could mean that they are checking up on the instructor or on a more positive note just getting another kind of input.

[goshawk]

What did you mean by 'verify' in this context? It could mean that they are checking up on the instructor or on a more positive note just getting another kind of input.
What I meant is that there are some students who need the visual "proof" that what the instructor is trying to tell them that they are doing is in fact correct.
I've had students who, for lack of an easier way of putting it, didn't believe me when I told them that they had an over the top move. One even had his wife videotape his swing before they believed what I was trying to tell him. I tried to tell him that his downswing was about 6" outside to in, causing his slices and shanks. When he saw the tape at home, he did the lines on the screen and figured out it was more like 8" outside. I feel it was just a matter of trust. Since I wasn't using video to teach, he (prob) didn't believe I saw what was actually happening. In the end, everything worked out ok.
I've also had one student who had a pronounced head-bob (for lack of a better term) during his backswing/downswing. His head lifted and dropped over 4" during his swing, causing him to hit both fat and thin shots with his irons. Again, no video and he didn't trust what I was telling him until someone he knew told him the same thing.
Now the question: do I invest $700-1000 in video equipment and software just for those few people I run into who absolutely NEED the video feedback?

[hoganben]

Now the question: do I invest $700-1000 in video equipment and software just for those few people I run into who absolutely NEED the video feedback?[/quote]

No I know it wouldn't meet a professionals standard, but it dawned on me one day that I could use the family video camera to tape my own swing. One $25 Walmart tripod later and I was all set. Works great -not that much different than the CD a golf pro made of my swing. It's actually better because he only made three or four "recordings" of my swing. I also used it to tape my dad and my son on the range, so it is "priceless". My son likes it when we "catch" one of us being able to hit the guy in the range cart. He makes me play it over and over. Dumb question -is there an easy way to load a vcr tape into a computer program that would allow one to put "lines" etc on the screen? Are there relatively cheap programs for the average joe to use?

[TourIQ]

Duane always used the true flight of the ball to "verify" what the instructor is trying to get him to do, and almost never hitting into a net. If it resulted in improvement to ball striking then he kept it, if not it was dumped or shelved real fast. No coaching advise was every accepted as being gospel, and each change was simply evaluated as to dispersion and/or distance.

Interesting points around "dumping" or "shelving" things that didn't seem to work. Most (from what I've seen) instructors have a hissy-fit if you don't do everything exactly like they want you to, even if it doesn't seem to work (despite a lot of range time etc). Yes hoganben, many instructors would take a hissy-fit if a student goes against the grain of advise offered, but we also know that no coach is 100% correct in what they prescribe by way of improvement. In the end, it's the student who is ultimately responsible for their own lack of improvement or sub-optimal performance achieved.

No different at work, most leaders and workers know all about their OWN jobs except how to improve it :rofl:. If improvement were 'easy' there would be more evidence of it happening year-over-year :eek:. Sport improvement is no different. The mini-tours are full of professional golfers who have hit the 'cement block wall' and further effort aimed at entitlement [further improvment] yields no new fruit, and end up spending more money then they reap.

[hoganben]

[quote=TourIQ]Yes hoganben, many instructors would take a hissy-fit if a student goes against the grain of advise offered, but we also know that no coach is 100% correct in what they prescribe by way of improvement. In the end, it's the student who is ultimately responsible for their own lack of improvement or sub-optimal performance achieved.

I know that most instructors have their own system/methods etc. What about an instructor having some flexibility in their methods to suit the different needs/body types/ flexibility/ etc of their students. I love watching the senior tour and all their quirky swings. I think you mentioned that you laughed at the side by side comparisons to Tiger. It just seems that with many instructors it's their way or the highway (just what I have found).

PS -I don't think I'll ask anymore questions about methods/etc, but I'd like to hear from people who went to a golf pro and lowered their handicap.I'd like to get the names of these pros. I'm thinking of perhaps trying a golf pro again, if I can find someone who will help, rather than hinder. I'm too old to waste my time. I've had great success in the last year with just tips from the golf channel (thanks to Ernie and Gary Player), some tips out of one of the Golf Magazines and Google of all things. It's amazing how you can just google a swing flaw, get a large number of suggestions/videos/etc, narrow them down to 2 to 3, and take them out onto the range. It might be handy though to have a pair of eyes to watch my swing. I thought that I might try someone who is so busy that he wouldn't need to string me along all summer.

[goshawk]

I know that most instructors have their own system/methods etc. What about an instructor having some flexibility in their methods to suit the different needs/body types/ flexibility/ etc of their students. I love watching the senior tour and all their quirky swings. I think you mentioned that you laughed at the side by side comparisons to Tiger. It just seems that with many instructors it's their way or the highway (just what I have found).

That's one of the primary reasons why I don't use videotape. I have students who are not tour pros, and most probably won't be (I never say NEVER!). What I have are ordinary people with all sorts of physical limitations, also most of them aren't really that interested in becoming scratch (or lower) golfers.
If I were to use side by side video to compare their setup/swing, who do I use? Tiger's not 5'6" and doesn't weigh 220lbs. Lorena Ochoa isn't 5' tall and she deosn't weigh 160. Who would I compare with someone that's 6'7" tall and weighs in the neighborhood of 350lbs? And what about someone who has spinal issues and can't make a "full" turn of the shoulders? Or the amputee I taught last year who lost his left leg below the knee and uses a prosthesis?
As you said, there are so many body types and flexibility issues. Everyone also has their own speed at which they learn. My job is to vary my teaching style and methods to each individual to help them improve their golf game, from the teebox to the cup.

[Golftime]

That's one of the primary reasons why I don't use videotape. I have students who are not tour pros, and most probably won't be (I never say NEVER!). What I have are ordinary people with all sorts of physical limitations, also most of them aren't really that interested in becoming scratch (or lower) golfers.
If I were to use side by side video to compare their setup/swing, who do I use? Tiger's not 5'6" and doesn't weigh 220lbs. Lorena Ochoa isn't 5' tall and she deosn't weigh 160. Who would I compare with someone that's 6'7" tall and weighs in the neighborhood of 350lbs? And what about someone who has spinal issues and can't make a "full" turn of the shoulders? Or the amputee I taught last year who lost his left leg below the knee and uses a prosthesis?
As you said, there are so many body types and flexibility issues. Everyone also has their own speed at which they learn. My job is to vary my teaching style and methods to each individual to help them improve their golf game, from the teebox to the cup.
I use video but never compare to anybody else's swing for all the reasons that you list. I do use it just to show them what they are doing. It makes it easy to show that a backswing is too long or too short or whatever the fault is. Some people like the visualfeedback.