The Unpublished Facebook Comment

There’s a debate happening in 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.”

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—championing instead “emotionally safe, self-discovery and self-reliant approaches” where students arrive at solutions through personal trial and error.

I’ve been told repeatedly that “naturals are self-coaching from what they feel.”

Let’s pause there.

Wouldn’t those “naturals” exclude the vast majority of beginners and amateurs who struggle just to hold the club and stand next to the ball effectively?

The Question Nobody’s Asking

If we’re committed to a complete “learn-and-develop approach” based solely on personal trial and error adjustments, aren’t we facilitating exploration without providing the mechanical frameworks that accelerate that discovery?

At what point does “student-centered” become “student-abandoned”?

Think about the last time you met a self-taught player on your lesson tee 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’s the outcome of pure self-discovery without mechanical guidance.

The Real Issue

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.

You can wrap it in student-centered language. You can make it sound progressive and emotionally intelligent.

But if your philosophy prevents you from teaching someone how to effectively move the golf club, you’re not serving 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.