The Unpublished Facebook Comment

There's a debate happening in some golf instruction circles that deserves more attention than it's getting.

The premise sounds reasonable enough: "There is instruction that meets the needs of the teacher and instruction that meets the needs of the student."

Despite it being a Facebook post from a well known teacher, it's hard to argue with that, right? We'd all agree that coaching for your own gratification rather than the student's success is flawed and ethically questionable.

But here's where it gets interesting.

Some coaches are using this framework to dismiss mechanics entirely. The author of the above Facebook wrote a book that champions "emotionally safe, self-discovery and self-reliant approaches."

I watched this debate unfold. Respected coaches sat on the sidelines while mechanics were dismissed as irrelevant compared to emotional safety.

I can’t stay quiet. Here is my reply:

The Comment

Okay, I've already been "corrected" in this and other threads that the "naturals are self coaching from what they feel." Wouldn't those "naturals" rule out the vast majority of beginners and amateurs that try and fail to hold the club and stand next to the ball effectively?

And by virtue of that, wouldn't a complete "learn-and-develop approach - to arrive at a performance or solution based on personal trial and error adjustments" mean that we as coaches are facilitating exploration without providing essential framework that accelerates discovery? Doesn't that framework ensure players avoid compensations that can inhibit future growth?

Further, if this is in fact true, why would anyone supporting this outlook have a job as a coach in the first place? If our role isn't even to share basic fundamentals, (yes, those are mechanics) isn't the job relegated to holding a player's hand while they aimlessly try things?

Think about the last time you saw or met a self-taught player for the first time. Recall the issues you found with how they developed - the years of bad habits ingrained that left them toiling. Lost. Frustrated.

That, friends, is the outcome of pure self-discovery without mechanical guidance.

The real issue at hand is that attempts to help without guidance on the direct physical motions of the body and club that launch the ball is, in and of itself, a flawed approach.

Yes, wrap it in student centered language. Make it sound “lucid, intelligent [and] well thought out..."

But if your philosophy prevents you from teaching someone how to effectively move the golf club, you're not serving the students - you're serving your own theoretical comfort.

Which brings us back to the original question:

Is your instruction meeting your needs, or that of the student?

I'll take Mechanics for $800, Alex.

The Wrap Up

I had a self taught player come in a few days ago. And sure enough, while he figured out how to hit it online, there were some fatal flaws. Another coach even accurately described the short to long and slow to fast stroke pattern.

Was there great advice to fix that?

Not really.

Did he and I discuss the limitations of the pattern he was using?

Yes.

Did he and I discuss the mechanics of a new setup and movement pattern?

Yes.

Will he putt better tomorrow and next week and next month?

"Only the journey is written, not the destination." - Ardeth Bay, The Mummy Returns