When Enough is Enough
We’ve all heard someone say at one time or another, “I took lessons from so-and-so, and he ruined my game.” Some of today’s high-priced tour gurus are known to have as many failures as successes. In Timothy Gallwey’s book The Inner Game of Golf, he relates the story of a golfer who takes up the game, and within a year is shooting par. The golfer’s friends, amazed at his progress, urge him to take lessons and join the tour. After taking lessons, the golfer could no longer break 85.
Stories like these do nothing to further the cause of the golf teaching profession, and yet they are out there. Unfortunately, there is more than a ring of truth to these tales. How is it that proper instruction can hurt a person’s game, if not ruin it entirely altogether?
The key word in that question is “proper.” Teaching golf has long been considered to be both an art and a science, but what may be proper from the science viewpoint may not be proper when it comes to the art of teaching. This can be a difficult thing to discern for teaching professionals, even highly accomplished ones. After all, getting rid of a swing flaw and replacing it with the proper motion will automatically help the person play better golf…right?
Maybe not. One thing that must be understood is that most golfers have learned how to compensate for their flaws, ingraining little nuances that help them overcome the flaws. A teacher may help a student fix a flaw, but the little nuances might remain, and they may or may not be seen by slow-motion video. In addition, correcting a flaw requires the student to now learn a whole different set of nuances that go along with the new move!
It’s often not easy to know when a golfer either no longer needs instruction or when it may be detrimental to change what the golfer is doing. If a golfer is continuing to improve, there is often no reason to impart instruction, other than to correct obvious errors. If a golfer is regressing and cannot stop his free-fall, then instruction is virtually required. But, what happens when a golfer plateaus, or is improving more slowly than he or the teacher wants? This is when things get tricky.
We often see this with tour players. Not satisfied with the status quo, they often undergo radical changes to their games in hopes of getting to the next level. Sometimes it works, as Nick Faldo demonstrated under David Leadbetter’s tutelage. Sometimes it doesn’t.
If a player plateaus and seeks our help, how can we be sure that our instruction will help, rather than set back, this particular player’s game? First, it’s important to get a sense of what the player hopes to accomplish. If, for example, a mini-tour player is stuck at a +1 handicap level and wants to play on the major tours, he needs to improve to about a +5 for this to become a reality. This is certainly a case where instruction is necessary. If a player wants to hit the ball higher just because he has become enamored with it for some reason, instruction may not be necessary. Tour player Martin Kaymer suffered this fate in a similar way one year. Thinking he needed to hit a draw in order to compete at the Masters, Kaymer worked all winter long on getting rid of his breadand- butter fade, a ball flight that had taken him to the top of the Official World Ranking and to a previous major victory. Not only did Kaymer miss the cut at the next Masters, but his game went south in a hurry. Only after spending months working his way back to his original ball flight did Kaymer again find the winners circle.
And, when instruction is necessary, how do we know when we’re on the right or wrong track? Students who regress are often told by the teacher, “Well, you have to get worse before you get better.” But what if they stay worse? It’s important to ask the player two questions: “Is this change too uncomfortable?” and “Is this change something you think you can do?” Getting positive answers to these questions can go a long way in avoiding a permanent or long-term worsening of a student’s game. If the answer to even one of these questions is negative, then the teacher must change course. Insisting a player continue to make a change that feels too uncomfortable or that he is not confident in is a mistake that, unfortunately, many teachers make.
Trying to make a feel player more analytical is often folly, and vice versa. Teachers and coaches who don’t understand this can hurt players, too. Many observers thought Faldo was too analytical in his prime, but USGTF sport psychology consultant Dr. Gregg Steinberg disagrees, saying being analytical was Faldo’s strength. It also helps to answer a basic question: Which of the ball flight laws, namely clubhead path, clubface angle, centeredness of contact, angle of approach, or clubhead speed needs improving? Better players may hit shot after shot well, so they are searching for consistency. We need to ask, what pattern is there to this player’s missed shots? Is there a pattern?
Perhaps the toughest question of all to answer is, “Is this player as good as he’s ever going to get?” This question may be impossible to answer until after the fact. Padraig Harrington won three majors in a two year span, and what did he do? Change his swing. He hasn’t won since. Tiger Woods played some of the best golf in history under Butch Harmon. He then changed to Hank Haney as his coach, and although his record was still outstanding, Woods’ best golf never matched what he did with Harmon.
As we can see, knowing “when to say when” as a teacher or coach – and as a player – can be a challenging and complicated task. Many factors must be considered, and erring on the conservative side may be the best course of action to take.
