I have been around golf instruction for a long time.
I have taught golf. I have worked with good instructors. I have friends who still make their living teaching the game.
So this is not an attack on golf instructors.
I also understand something very simple.
Golf instructors need to make money.
But there is a part of the golf instruction business model that has bothered me for years.
The instructor makes money by giving lessons.
More lessons create more income.
The golfer, on the other hand, is paying because he wants to become better at playing golf.
Preferably as quickly and efficiently as possible.
Those two interests do not always line up.
That is the part I struggle with.
The Business Model Creates a Conflict
Think about the structure.
A golfer comes to an instructor because something is not working.
Maybe he is topping his irons.
Maybe he cannot get the driver in play.
Maybe he slices every tee shot.
Maybe he simply wants to stop embarrassing himself when he plays with his friends.
The golfer wants a solution.
The instructor sells lessons.
That does not mean the instructor is dishonest.
It does not mean instructors intentionally stretch out the process.
But it does mean the business has a built-in conflict.
The person selling the solution financially benefits when the solution takes longer.
That is uncomfortable to say, especially because I know so many people in this business.
But I think it is worth talking about.
Most Golfers Are Just Trying to Play Golf
One problem is that we sometimes teach recreational golfers as if they are preparing for the PGA Tour.
Most golfers are not trying to play college golf.
They are not trying to qualify for the U.S. Amateur.
They are not trying to become professional golfers.
Most people want something much simpler.
They want to get the ball into the air.
They want the ball to go somewhat toward the target.
They want to keep up with their group.
They want to avoid hitting three balls into the woods.
They want to enjoy an afternoon with their friends.
That matters.
If that is the golfer’s goal, I do not believe my first responsibility as an instructor is to rebuild the entire golf swing.
My responsibility is to help that golfer play golf.
Fix the things that are keeping the golfer from functioning.
Preserve the things that already work.
Do not destroy five things to fix one.
Score first. Swing second.
Where Instruction Can Go Wrong
Golf swings are connected movements.
One movement affects another.
A golfer may come over the top, but the over-the-top move may not be the actual problem.
It may be the result of something that happened earlier.
The golfer may be responding to the position of the body, arms, clubface, hips, shoulders, or some combination of them.
That is where instruction becomes difficult.
If three movements work together, sometimes changing only one of them creates another problem.
The golfer is now trying to perform a new movement while the other pieces are still operating under the old pattern.
And then we hear one of my least favorite phrases in golf instruction.
“You have to get worse before you get better.”
I hate that saying.
Sometimes it is true.
If you are making a major change to a deeply established movement, your performance may temporarily decline.
That happens.
But sometimes the golfer gets worse because he was only given part of the solution.
Those are not the same thing.
A Lesson I Watched
Years ago, I watched the development of a junior golfer I will call Student A.
Student A was a family friend, so I had the opportunity to watch him play and practice over time.
His instructor, whom I will call Instructor B, was someone I knew personally and liked.
Instructor B was also a very highly regarded golf instructor with significant professional recognition.
Student A had a short, compact golf swing.
His biggest visible problem was that he came over the top.
I personally watched one of his 60-minute lessons.
For the entire lesson, Student A hit golf balls from an extremely closed stance.
I understood the drill.
There was nothing wrong with the drill itself.
Closing the stance can create additional space for the hands and club to approach the golf ball more from the inside.
It can help a player experience a movement that is very different from coming over the top.
My concern was not the drill.
My concern was that the drill was the entire lesson.
From what I saw in Student A’s swing, I believed his over-the-top move was connected to several other movements.
In my opinion, about three different pieces needed to change together for him to understand the complete cause-and-effect relationship.
If you change only one part, the new movement still has to interact with everything else that has not changed.
That can create a golfer who is technically doing what the instructor asked but hitting the golf ball worse.
Then what happens?
Another lesson.
Then another piece.
Then another lesson.
Again, I do not know Instructor B’s intentions.
Maybe there was a longer teaching plan.
Maybe he did not want to overwhelm the student.
Maybe there were conversations I never heard.
I want to be fair about that.
But the business model still makes me uncomfortable.
If several connected movements need to change, why are we separating them?
What Happened Later Bothered Me More
Student A continued taking lessons with Instructor B throughout that summer.
Later, I watched Student A play.
He was still using the extremely closed stance on the golf course.
That bothered me more than the original lesson.
A drill is supposed to be a tool.
It can exaggerate a movement.
It can create a sensation.
It can help the golfer discover something that he could not feel before.
But eventually, the golfer has to leave the drill.
He has to stand over a golf ball on the course and hit a golf shot.
If the exaggerated drill becomes the golfer’s permanent golf swing, I start wondering whether the real problem was ever solved.
That is an important distinction.
A drill can be correct.
The golfer can perform the drill correctly.
The lesson can even look impressive.
None of that necessarily means the golfer has become better at playing golf.
The drill is not the outcome.
Playing golf is the outcome.
Play golf, not your golf swing.
Maybe We Measure Golf Lessons the Wrong Way
This is where I think instructors and golfers both need to ask better questions.
Golf instruction is often measured by mechanics.
Did the swing look better?
Did the launch monitor numbers improve?
Did the golfer get into the right position?
Did the video look more like the model?
Those things can matter.
But I think there is a more basic question.
Can the golfer play better golf?
If someone comes to me because he keeps topping his irons, I want him to leave knowing how to get the ball airborne more consistently.
If someone cannot keep a driver on the golf course, I want to help him find a functional shot.
It might not be perfect.
It might not be beautiful.
It might not be the swing I would build for an elite player.
But it lets him play.
Then we can keep improving.
The instruction should grow with the golfer.
Competitive Golfers Are Different
This does not mean I oppose major swing changes.
There are absolutely times when a player needs one.
A competitive junior is different.
A college golfer is different.
A strong amateur preparing for major tournaments is different.
A professional golfer is different.
Those players may need deeper technical changes.
They may need long-term development.
They may accept temporary performance problems because they are trying to reach a much higher level.
That is fine.
The mistake is assuming every golfer needs the same approach.
A 20-handicap player trying to enjoy Saturday golf with his friends does not necessarily need to be rebuilt like a tour player.
Find out what the golfer actually wants.
Then teach toward that goal.
Fix Causes, Not Symptoms
My own teaching philosophy has always been practical.
I want to understand why the ball is doing what it is doing.
Then I want to find the movement causing it.
Not just the visible symptom.
And if several movements have to work together, I want the golfer to understand how they work together.
That cause-and-effect relationship matters.
Awareness comes first.
When a golfer understands what is happening, he can begin to help himself.
That is much more valuable than simply telling him where to put the club.
A golfer should eventually become less dependent on the instructor, not more dependent.
That may be another uncomfortable idea for the golf instruction business.
But I believe it.
The Question Instructors Should Ask
If you teach golf for a living, I think there is a simple question worth asking yourself.
Am I trying to create a better golf swing, or am I trying to create a more capable golfer?
Sometimes those are the same thing.
Sometimes they are not.
There is also another question.
Am I teaching what the golfer needs today, or am I teaching everything I know?
Those are very different things.
Good instruction is not about showing the student how smart the instructor is.
It is about helping the golfer solve a problem.
The Question Golfers Should Ask
Golfers also have some responsibility.
Before you take a lesson, know what you want from it.
Do you want to stop slicing?
Do you want better contact?
Do you want to lower your handicap?
Do you want to rebuild your swing?
Do you want to play tournament golf?
Those goals require different types of instruction.
Then pay attention to the results.
Do you understand what you are changing?
Do you understand why you are changing it?
Can you transfer the lesson to the golf course?
Are you becoming more capable of solving your own problems?
Or are you becoming increasingly dependent on the next lesson?
Those are fair questions.
Who Is the Lesson Supposed to Serve?
I do not have a perfect solution to the economics of golf instruction.
Instructors need sustainable businesses.
Golfers also deserve instruction that serves their interests.
I understand both sides.
That is why this subject has always made me more sad than angry.
But I keep coming back to the same question.
Who is the golf lesson ultimately supposed to serve?
For me, the answer is the golfer.
The success of a lesson should not be measured by how complicated the explanation was.
It should not be measured by how impressive the drill looked.
And it should not be measured by how many more lessons were booked.
It should be measured by whether the golfer leaves more capable of playing the game.
That does not mean every problem gets fixed in one hour.
It does not mean every golfer should avoid long-term instruction.
It simply means the golfer’s goal should remain the center of the process.
That seems obvious.
I am not sure our business model always makes it so.
What do you think?
If you have taken golf lessons, or if you teach the game yourself, I would be interested to hear how you think instruction should balance player development with the realities of running a teaching business.