CGTF vs. CPGA

[setter02]

Originally Posted by houdini

Nice first post!


A debate is a debate. You have no argument just an opinion.

Welcome A Board!

Not much of a debate. But as said in other posts, it doesn't matter of your designation, you can still suck. But I'm sure not anyone can learn to be an instructor in a week vs. being immersed in the field for years.

You either have an eye for it or you don't, but you also need to be able to show what you want your students to learn, it's hard to learn something when you can't visually see it or understand what is being asked of you.

[JSGolf]

For the debate it can be put so many different ways but the CGTF is like king snake of instruction. It may say Teacher/Instructor on the little bag tag but one week of class is not near enough. Further the mailing in of scorecards is priceless, for their PAT.

[hogannut]

First of all the CPGA program emphasises all aspects of golf operations. Their program spends as much time on how to set up and run a pro shop as it does with teaching. Teaching is only ONE aspect of the CPGA program.

I also agree that the CGTF program on its own is nothing, but if you are only interested in teaching the CPGA program is a huge waste of time as well.

Harvey Pennick spent the last few years of his teaching career giving instruction from a wheel chair, and probably all of his students could have beaten him on the course, but Pennick was still a great teacher.

As I have also said within this thread I know instructors with NO affiliation to ANY organization and they are teaching current playing pro's.

An instructor is only as good as the effort they put into it. If you are constantly studying the golf swing, reading any and all teaching material you will be a better instructor than someone who doesn't regardless of whether your bag tag reads CPGA or CGTF.

Jack Nicklaus could beat Jack Grout at golf, Tiger can beat Hank, Phil can beat Butch. All of these men were/are great teachers.

[hogannut]

Originally Posted by setter02

Not much of a debate. But as said in other posts, it doesn't matter of your designation, you can still suck. But I'm sure not anyone can learn to be an instructor in a week vs. being immersed in the field for years.

You either have an eye for it or you don't, but you also need to be able to show what you want your students to learn, it's hard to learn something when you can't visually see it or understand what is being asked of you.

YOu are not immersed in TEACHING necessarily. Actually you spend more time in the shop taking tee times and selling golf shirts than you do teaching.

This is the only thing that pi$$es me off about the perception of what a CPGA pro is. I know a lot of CPGA pro's and most of them can't break 75. Why.......because they don't get to play and practice enough to do it. They are talented enough, but the demands of working within the seasonal industry that golf is here in Canada ultimaltely cause their games to deteroriate.

[Golftime]

Originally Posted by JSGolf

For the debate it can be put so many different ways but the CGTF is like king snake of instruction. It may say Teacher/Instructor on the little bag tag but one week of class is not near enough. Further the mailing in of scorecards is priceless, for their PAT.

What do you mean by "the CGTF is like the king snake of instruction"?

[goshawk]

John, I get the feeling that he's referring to the fact that one species of king snake looks remarkably like a coral snake, but is non-poisonous. In other words, looks dangerous but it's harmless. Looks like a duck, squawks like a duck, walks like a duck, but is really a kangaroo. I get the distinct feeling that JSGolf had a bad experience with a CGTF instructor so all of them are worthless.
JMO

[setter02]

Originally Posted by hogannut

YOu are not immersed in TEACHING necessarily. Actually you spend more time in the shop taking tee times and selling golf shirts than you do teaching.

This is the only thing that pi$$es me off about the perception of what a CPGA pro is. I know a lot of CPGA pro's and most of them can't break 75. Why.......because they don't get to play and practice enough to do it. They are talented enough, but the demands of working within the seasonal industry that golf is here in Canada ultimaltely cause their games to deteroriate.

Part of it has to be taken as how much does the individual want to become a good teacher. Although not in the CPGA yet, I'm in the Humber PGM Program. I worked the range pretty much all summer at my placement, watched at least 50% of the lessons given to see how and why things were done said. Got to see a ton of bad swings and was able to figure out how I would instruct them. I actually helped out some members (an then got in trouble for doing so). So it is still up to the individual to show an interest on building the skills needed to become a good teacher.

As for running the shop, that's where you make your money, so it has to be done. CPGA does somewhat stand for 'Can't Play Golf Anymore', but it still comes down to how much you want it.

I would drive 35-40 minutes to my placement, work my 8 hour shift then go practice and play 9 holes every other day, whereas some of the guys would just leave right after work and not bother even tho they lived 5 minutes away.

[JSGolf]

By King Snake, I was reffering to the knock off clubs available in the late 90's that looked identical to King Cobra's. CGTF may want to be considered in the same sentence as the CPGA but they really do not belong.

[goshawk]

Ummmm .........

Oh, never mind. I give up.

[hogannut]

Originally Posted by setter02

Part of it has to be taken as how much does the individual want to become a good teacher. Although not in the CPGA yet, I'm in the Humber PGM Program. I worked the range pretty much all summer at my placement, watched at least 50% of the lessons given to see how and why things were done said. Got to see a ton of bad swings and was able to figure out how I would instruct them. I actually helped out some members (an then got in trouble for doing so). So it is still up to the individual to show an interest on building the skills needed to become a good teacher.

As for running the shop, that's where you make your money, so it has to be done. CPGA does somewhat stand for 'Can't Play Golf Anymore', but it still comes down to how much you want it.

I would drive 35-40 minutes to my placement, work my 8 hour shift then go practice and play 9 holes every other day, whereas some of the guys would just leave right after work and not bother even tho they lived 5 minutes away.

The difference between you and many CPGA guys is that you stay and practice. I'm not critisizing the tasks a CPGA guy has to do, but like you said the pro shop is where the cash flow happens so of course you have to spend time there.

Humber eh.......say hi to Chris Bevan from Scott Stacey!

[hogannut]

Originally Posted by goshawk

Ummmm .........

Oh, never mind. I give up.

lol.......see previous pages of this thread right?

[hogannut]

Originally Posted by JSGolf

By King Snake, I was reffering to the knock off clubs available in the late 90's that looked identical to King Cobra's. CGTF may want to be considered in the same sentence as the CPGA but they really do not belong.

As someone who was in the CPGA years ago (I wish I had stuck it out) , and has also taken the CGTF course (I am not currently an active teacher) I must say your statements are based on little fact. Just like comparing a college and university degree/diploma the person who utilizes their peice of paper to the best of their ability is the one who should achieve the most success, regardless if it is college or university.

[goshawk]

Originally Posted by hogannut

lol.......see previous pages of this thread right?

Pretty much.........all 3 pages, and other threads as well. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and there's very little that can be said to change that opinion. It's really pointless trying to defend one opinion over another one because everyone has a reason for forming that opinion.

My last comment on the subject: who really cares what "initials" are connected with the instructor as long as that instructor is effective?

[JSGolf]

Well the initials matter if you're only a CGTF. It does say alot about the commitment to the game that said instructor has made and what the qualifications are. One week and a sorta, kinda well not really PAT speaks volumes.

[goshawk]

Originally Posted by JSGolf

Well the initials matter if you're only a CGTF. It does say alot about the commitment to the game that said instructor has made and what the qualifications are. One week and a sorta, kinda well not really PAT speaks volumes.

So what you're saying is instructors like Butch Harmon and Stan Utley (both played on tour but never was "trained" by the PGA) are pretty worthless since they're not "affiliated" with either PGA or USGTF? Neither of them, in their biography or books, have any affiliation listed but they do "train" Tour players. So I suppose they're not even as good as CGTF instructors since they don't list them.
Look, all I'm saying is that, it doesn't matter whether you have "initials" after your name or not, it's the individual instructor not the school they attended that makes them competent or not.

[JSGolf]

Ok so Harmon comes from one of the greatest families of club pros ever. And Stan Utley spent how many years inside the ropes after he had slowed down his schedule. Great examples there. What about Billy Bob who scratches out his check for the one week course that is what is at issue here as the comparison was to be between the CPGA and the CGTF.

[goshawk]

Originally Posted by JSGolf

Ok so Harmon comes from one of the greatest families of club pros ever. And Stan Utley spent how many years inside the ropes after he had slowed down his schedule. Great examples there. What about Billy Bob who scratches out his check for the one week course that is what is at issue here as the comparison was to be between the CPGA and the CGTF.

All I'm doing is responding to your implication that unless you're PGA (or CPGA) certified, you're not worth the time of day. Neither of those two "world class" instructors is "affiliated" with the PGA as far as I know, although both were successful on the Tour. The Golf Channel used to think the same way, but changed their tune and also has ads for USGFT (another branch of the WGTF). So by extrapolation, are you saying that unless you're PGA trained or at least "played" on the big Tour, you can't possibly be a good instructor?
By the way, I am very proud of my CGTF certification and have been pretty successful, not through sheer numbers of students, but satisfied students. Yes, I have had a few who only had one lesson and moved on to a different instructor. But EVERY instructor has that....students, for whatever reason, with whom they were not compatible.
The CGTF gives potential instructors some of the tools they need to get started in the profession. It's up to them to expand on their 1 week learning process and LEARN how to teach. There are hundreds of "natural" instructors, people who can easily see what may be causing swing faults or what have you, that don't need to go through that 3 year process just to teach. They are not interested in running a pro shop or managing a golf course. All they want to do is teach golf.
It's not the certification process, it's the person.

[JSGolf]

Sorry but I am struggling to see your points. I think you would agree though that one week is not enough for anyone to be taken seriously no? And just to teach? Please do not trivialize what the CPGA does to train its members to even think that a one week course is the same.

[goshawk]

Originally Posted by JSGolf

Sorry but I am struggling to see your points. I think you would agree though that one week is not enough for anyone to be taken seriously no? And just to teach? Please do not trivialize what the CPGA does to train its members to even think that a one week course is the same.

I have no wish to trivialize what someone goes through with PGA certification. It's a big sacrifice of 3 years, working for a "Class A" professional. When they complete the process, they are well trained to run a golf course pro shop as well as teach.
By the same token, don't trivialize CGTF instructors who have spent years training themselves to teach. No, I wouldn't put a lot of stock in someone who have not played golf, not taught anyone, have not put forth the effort to improve themselves, but just took the certification course and immediately decided to start a school. But what about the person who has achieved these things: 1-10 hdcp golfer, years of teaching experience outside of golf, an extended period of time gathering and learning teaching techniques specific to golf, and continually learning new/different techniques? Are they still not worth the effort, simply because they don't have CPGA or PGA professional in their signature? My example of Stan Utley fits into this scenario. He was successful on Tour, but had little to no teaching experience. He sought out his old instructor from his young days (Stan's father's instructor) in Memphis, who is also not affiliated with PGA. Stan developed his techniques from working with Mr. Akins. But, from your definition, because he's not PGA trained he's probably not worth the effort. I don't think so.
Summerizing, I have nothing against your argument that PGA Teaching Professionals are very well trained, and CGTF certification is an "introduction" to teaching. But both certification methods have their shortcomings as well IMO. If all I want to do is teach the game and not run a pro shop or a golf course, I felt like I would have wasted 3 years learning a lot about things which I had no interest in pursuing. All I felt was that I needed was the "tools" to get me started and I'd run with it, doing my own intensive training and studying prior to trying to find students. I am so grateful for my friends and relatives on whom I "practiced". Don't disregard a teaching professional just because he has one set of "initials" in his signature or another. There are a very large number of very good instructors who have no "initials". There are probably a lot of instructors in the CGTF who are every bit as good as those in the PGA or CPGA. It's that instructor, not the certification process, that's going to help with the student's game.
My apologies for my long-winded response.

[dekker]

accept that certification is a fairly recent development dating back to the guilds and is only an advertisement for the fact you have spent time acquiring said knowledge.
It does not state your particular competence other than you passed the requirement.
Call me strange,but I'd rather pick a player's brains any day.

[hogannut]

Originally Posted by JSGolf

Sorry but I am struggling to see your points. I think you would agree though that one week is not enough for anyone to be taken seriously no? And just to teach? Please do not trivialize what the CPGA does to train its members to even think that a one week course is the same.

So you base your choice of teachers entirely based on what affiliation they belong to?

Would you buy a car based entirely on what reviews it got from Consumer Guide, or would you drive one first?

My point is do you think you are going to get a more qualified opinion from someone who belongs to the CPGA, but never practices their own game, and never teaches or reads any of the teaching journals, or by someone with CGTF who plays and practices constantly, reads any and all teaching material.

Also......your points on the PAT test are not really that valid. First of all the PAT is at Cambridge......an extremely straight forward golf course, and you get 2 shots at your PAT and even if you don't make it over those 2 chances you still have 4 more years to play in.

There are a bunch of CPGA guys who are playing on Great Lakes who can't break 75. So if you are basing your opinions on the PAT, the CGTF isn't that far behind the CPGA.

[northernpro]

people argue from 'their side of the fence'..I'm a old school CPGA pro..
their are qualified people on both sides..but generally there are not
a lot of good golf instructors..JMO

[JSGolf]

You know I think I have been even further convinced here. With many CPGA pros not being able to break 75 on courses that get setup stupid for events on the great lakes vs. guys from the cgtf whom I have never met one who could break 85 let alone 75 anywhere.

[Trilinks Golf]

Originally Posted by JSGolf

You know I think I have been even further convinced here. With many CPGA pros not being able to break 75 on courses that get setup stupid for events on the great lakes vs. guys from the cgtf whom I have never met one who could break 85 let alone 75 anywhere.

http://www.cgtf.com/2009-tournament-results.htm

Check out the scores. 71 - 65 - I played with Chris the first round when he shot 1 under. He is new to the CGTF and still plays a lot so his game is still in tact, however if he builds his Teaching Career it will more than likely soften.

Personally I think your attacks against the CGTF are getting to the point of ridiculous. I cannot believe a guy can have one agenda to bash an organization and add nothing. You have had 7 post all bad mouthing the CGTF backed with nothing. It is getting old.

I will not bash the CPGA however they are looking at how to modernize their program and they will become closer to what the CGTF has done and is doing.

The largest group of Golf Professional world wide is not the PGA but the World Golf Teachers Federation.

Have some facts next time you respond.

[dekker]

I hope those who read this and are trying to make the right choice as to what camp will satisfy their need won't be discouraged by the disparity of consensus.

The only thing that matters is that you find someone who communicates the lessons in the clearest most effective way for your learning style. Whether that be through imagery,concise hands on instruction or simple demonstration if you are visually inclined.