CPGA Versus CGTF

[Gapwedge]

It seems like a good time to drop the comparison between the two groups.

"When the horse is dead, dismount" - John Kelly
________
Yamaha Tt250

[golfin-buddy]

I am sure there is also a business interest to ensure a steady supply of low-cost workers.

Sure it's a good business for the HP. Nothing beats cheap labor. That's the way it's been for close to a hundred years now. (we will celebrate one hundred years in 2011)

Actually, speaking with guys who have been through this 10-20 even 30 years ago, the guys of today have it good compared to the old days. They use to sleep in the store room in the old days cause it just wasn't worth it to go home when you locked up at 10-11 at night and had to wake up at 4 in the morning to open the shop the next day.

This being said, it's a great profession that most people don't understand the sacrifices the pro's have to make. I heard that just behind police, firefighters and army, is the CPGA pro when it comes to divorce percentile. Don't know how much there is to it but just thought it was a pretty important stat.

[BC MIST]

Explain to me why the Leadbetter swing setter is a good idea? or Natural Golf!!! If all these concepts were right then, why aren't there ANY Tour pros that swing the Natural way or why doesn't every swing have the early, extremely fast wrist cock that Nick Price has
As far as the swing goes, IMO the swing is actually a simple motion. Make the club travel up and down a single plane, let it be single axis (Jim Hardy type shoulder and left arm match) or 2 plane swing (Watson type). If every golfer can understand that the simpler the motion can be by making the club travel on this plane, the easier and more effective their golf swings will become.

I know nothing about the “Swing Setter,” however, it appears to be just another gimmick to separate the gullible from their money. The topic of “Natural Golf” has been discussed here for a few years and while the concept is still universally NOT accepted, it is a simpler and better way of swinging. That opinion is based on 35 years of conventional golf with reasonable success and now 11 years with a single axis type swing, where, overall, I am a better ball striker because of it, even as I age (61). I have my thoughts on why this is true, but this in not the thread in which to discuss them.

Actually Natural Golf is NOT the ideal single axis method. IMO, TGGS is, (www.swinglikemoe.com) as Todd and Tim Graves teach the fundamentals of Moe Norman’s swing. There is really no-one of note who uses a single axis method on any Tour and this is understandable. It takes a lifetime to become a Tour professional and as 99.9% of golf instruction at all levels in conventional, the probability of someone with Tour talent, and they are superiorly talented, beginning with a single axis swing, is almost nil. However, this does not mean that a single axis swing is inferior. Quite the contrary, actually.

Your comment here is superb and reflects the way it really is. No ego here. . “IMO the sign of a truly great teacher, is not his certification or playing skills, but his ability to make the student learn and accept the motion in the most simplistic way possible. Some will get it right away, some will need more attention.”

Your comment above includes a statement regarding moving the club up and down a single plane, (as in Hardy’s Single Plane Swing) Rather than ask a few questions and make a few comments about this on this thread, I will start another thread tomorrow on the subject and would welcome your thoughts and your criticisms of my mine. The concept of swing plane is often confusing to many and perhaps a discussion of this will help all of us understand the meaning and importance of swinging on the most efficient plane.

BTW: IMO, an early wrist set is better than "low and slow" start to the backswing. In fact, I use the earliest set possible as before I start my swing, my hands and wrists are set in the top of the backswing position. True. Those who swing back using a "wide" arc, are actually using the smallest arc possible, but is irrelevant anyway. The only arc of importance is the downswing arc and it should be as large as possible.

[mcgoo]

BC Mist; I look forward to the new thread because I have yet to understand this "single axis swing" you champion, so please define (describe) it well at the outset.

[Gapwedge]

IMO, an early wrist set is better than "low and slow" start to the backswing. In fact, I use the earliest set possible as before I start my swing, my hands and wrists are set in the top of the backswing position.

Thank you. I agree - despite the legions of pros who have told me NO.

There are a surprizing number of early 'wrist-setters' on Tour (Parnevik comes to mind). The challenge is that an early wrist set (for me) can quickly lead to an overly strong grip, and the occasional snap hook.

{EDIT: Oops. Parnevik has an overly strong grip. Campbell (the kiwi) is the early wrist-setter. I was thinking one thing and writing another. }

The best book I found promotiong this approach is "Two Step to a Perfect Golf Swing" by Shawn Humphries and Brad Townsend (2004).
________
Extreme Q Vaporizer

[golfin-buddy]

Your comment above includes a statement regarding moving the club up and down a single plane, (as in Hardy’s Single Plane Swing) Rather than ask a few questions and make a few comments about this on this thread, I will start another thread tomorrow on the subject and would welcome your thoughts and your criticisms of my mine. The concept of swing plane is often confusing to many and perhaps a discussion of this will help all of us understand the meaning and importance of swinging on the most efficient plane.

BTW: IMO, an early wrist set is better than "low and slow" start to the backswing. In fact, I use the earliest set possible as before I start my swing, my hands and wrists are set in the top of the backswing position. True. Those who swing back using a "wide" arc, are actually using the smallest arc possible, but is irrelevant anyway. The only arc of importance is the downswing arc and it should be as large as possible.[/quote]

What I meant by an early wrist cock is that the swing setter makes you snap it back. I actually don't mind an early wrist set. THe vast majority of my students have been taught to make the clubhead make the first 6-8 inches of their backswing (without moving the arms so that the clubhead only is moving in the first 6-8 inches.

The wide arc on the backswing is only related to how far your lead arn can go away from your chest in a streched yet relaxed position. If you look at the distance from the lead arms wrist to the sternum at address (usually the lenght of the arm) that is as wide as your arc is going to get. Just look at some video o any tour pro and measure. On 99.9% of all cases, they will have that same distance.

Low and slow is just a term that was created for the masses. The concept is good regarding the majority of the golfers for one reason only; their backswings are too fast. This unfortunately leads to an extremely quick transition that is "thrown" or casted. So in that respect, I have to agree with the concept.

Unfortunately, wihtout someone who is trained in teaching the golf swing wathcing them, some people make the mistake of dragging the clubhead on the backswing for 18-24 inches, leading to too much body movement and disruption of the balance required to make a proper, low point of the arc, move at the ball.

As far as the new thread, I look forward to it.

BTW... I looked at that website and Norman's swing, there really isn't all that much different. Other then the position at the top of the swing (mind you he's pretty old then and has no flexibility) the concepts are pretty close except that there isn't all that much rotation.Again age might be a factor, I don't know. Honestly, the only thing that really jumps at you is the setup position. (Arms and shaft are in a straight line.) Take a traditional swing, draw a line from the clubhead to the shoulder and bang, there's your impact position. it's basically the same move. Actually, it looks like he has to really snap the wrists through impact to square the face up. Tha I do not agree with. It might work for someone who is known to be the greatest ballstriker in history, that I do not dispute, but the average Joe just doesn't have that good of timming. To be continued in another thread....

[nokids]

That and I don't have any little Mexican friends to hang out with, and possibly Caddy for me when I take my shot at the Open.

Sorry I fell asleep, hope I am not too late!

[Laura Lipson]

It takes a week to certify for CGTF and their players ability test is 2 strokes harder to achieve than CPGA. CGTF teaches prospective golf teachers to teach golf and assumes they have already obtain the golf skill set to pass the players ability test. CPGA certification is for people who want to work full time at a golf course and includes turf and banquet management, how to run a pro shop etc and takes 3+ years to certify. CPGA certification requires you to become an assistant pro and attain sometimes what amounts to years of experience before they certify you. The extra CPGA years are usually required for those who can't pass the players ability test. As a CGTF teacher, I would recommend that you go with CGTF professionals versus CPGA professionals because we are better golfers and have been specifically taught to teach golf not be a pro shop attendant.

[golfisforfun]

Thank you for the reply and info.
I agree 100% that the CPGA involves learning about the entire golf industry and the CGTF focuses strictly on the instruction side of the game.
I dont think you can accurately say that CGTF members are better golfers than CPGA golfers.
Being a good golfer has nothing to do with being a good instructor, so playing ability is not important to me. What is important is being able to get your message across, being able to analyze a swing and being able to come up with a swing that fits the golfers body type, athletic ability and goals, and I am not sure that 5 days is enough time...
Comparing the 2 programs sort of like the saying "comparing apples and oranges" because they really are not comparable at all...
So the question might be, "Is 5 days enough time to become a certified golf instructor?"
I would never go to a mechanic who only spent 5 days learning how to repair a car...But thats not apples to apples either...

[Laura Lipson]

I can assure you that 5 days of intensive golf teaching instruction is sufficient assuming you can pass the players ability test which is not easy. Agreed each teacher is different and as Meg Mallon told me "if your teacher isn't working for you then change teachers". I am CGTF certified and I have never had any formal golf lessons from anyone. All my learning was done with the generous advice and assistance of LPGA tour players. I figured I would learn about golf from the best in the world and then share what I've learned with golf students. I also guarantee improved results. Many of those new to golf are astounded when I get them hitting the ball EVERY time during our first range lesson. It just re-affirms that they have found the best golf teacher in town.

[cleek]

Laura did you work for the LPGA ? are you a caddy or do you have friends on the tour ? curious to know how you were fortunate enough to get elite pro advice.
Also at which course or facility to do teach ?

[Laura Lipson]

No, I have never worked for the LPGA. I have consulted with many (if not all) LPGA players over the last 10 years or so and they have helped me become a better golfer and teacher. I am not affiliated with any specific course as I am an independent golf coach so I can teach anywhere. Call 613-841-3907 if you need some lessons.