CPGA Versus CGTF

[Golftime]

Who has heard of the CGTF (Canadian Golf Teachers Federation) and/or the WGTF (World Golf Teachers Federation)?

[John]

I've looked into the CGTF as well and it just doesn't hold any weight. The certification process is much too easy and short, being a CPGA pro your constantly upgrading and learning about how to teach. The only course i can think of where the head pro has his certification with CGTF is Casselview i believe.

I was going to get mine just to make a few bucks on the side teaching the odd lesson at driving ranges.

[Kilroy]

I certainly have. I know of several local schools who will not hire a tracher with that certification. This is because qualification standards are too low when compared to the CPGA pros. I would seek out a CPGA pro if I were you.

[hoolio]

I was going to get mine just to make a few bucks on the side teaching the odd lesson at driving ranges.

Same here, but the though of wearing white "beaters" and living out of a winibego was just a little more than I was willing to sacrifice to share my wealth of knowledge.

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.

[golfin-buddy]

I am a CPGA pro and let me tell you, there is quite a difference between the two.

CGTF guys get their "card" or certification in one weekend. CPGA pros have to go through play ability tests, TCCP (Teaching and Coaching Certification Program)1-5 , each one is usually 20 hours each, Rules of Golf (18 hours), teaching, club repairs, turfgrass and clubfitting seminars (approx 35- 40 hours), a business degree (3 years) etc... all this just to get passed the B class status.(assistant pro)

Would you trust yourself to someone who has well over 100 hours of training or one weekend of maybe 15 hours? The answer seems pretty simple.

[BC MIST]

I am a CPGA pro and let me tell you, there is quite a difference between the two.
Would you trust yourself to someone who has well over 100 hours of training or one weekend of maybe 15 hours? The answer seems pretty simple.

There is no doubt that the probability of getting a good teacher is greater from the CPGA training programme, however, what is important is that the person has a swing concept, single plane for example, that s/he teaches and knows how to lead the golfer from where he is to where he ought to be, without resorting to the multitude of swing thoughts that seem to be prevalent amongst SOME teaching professionals, and are counter productive. I am specifically referring to the turn your shoulders, drive your legs, shift your weight, type of teaching. These things, and others will happen incidently, if a few other, easy to perform motions are made. One does not need to be CPGA to teach effectively, but one needs to have an understanding of what is truly essential, to be effective. While it boils down to just a lot of opinion, the Leadbetter, Harmon, MacLean stuff, that fills the air waves and magazines, may be the problem, not the solution. Most instruction is still based on the perception of what the pros do, or what they feel they do, rather than into what positions the golfer, WITH NORMAL ABILITY should get, to hit the ball consistently.

This may not be relevent, but, if current teaching CPGA or other philosophies are so good, why has the average golfers score only dropped a shot or two in 25 years, with all the technological advances that we have seen regarding equipment, in that same length of time? IMO, it is what is being taught, or perhaps how it is being taught.

There are some good teaching CPGA pros and some poor ones, too. I am sure that the same applies to the other organizations, as well.

[Kilroy]

Especially those with little or no training, just a weekend test and the ability to break 80 in a qualifier.

[BC MIST]

Especially those with little or no training, just a weekend test and the ability to break 80 in a qualifier.

While breaking 80 may seem like a poor prerequisite to being a certified instructor, it does not prevent the person from understanding what a good golf swing looks like, the lead up drills and motions to get there and the ability to communicate this information.

I have recommended someone to several forum members who is an excellent instructor, and yet he failed the playing test several times before finally passing. On the other hand there are certified professionals who may be adequate in some roles as a professional, but who can't teach. Breaking 80 is a poor requirement. I am sure that Tom Kite and Ben Crenshaw would agree that while Harvey Penick could not break 80, he was a helluva teacher to them.

There are scores of examples of athletes who were very ordinary in their sport and yet were great coaches. Brian Kilrea would be an appropriate example. Walk up to a "Certified Club Fitter" in Golftown and ask them to show you a driver shaft profile for your fast transition, smooth tempo and mid release golf swing, and watch their eyes glaze over. Most of them have never assembled a golf club in their lives, think shafts are either stiff, regular or senior and yet they are certified. Knowledge is the key.

[Chieflongtee]

Same here, but the though of wearing white "beaters" and living out of a winibego was just a little more than I was willing to sacrifice to share my wealth of knowledge.

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.

Nor your head shrink

[Chieflongtee]

Walk up to a "Certified Club Fitter" in Golftown and ask them to show you a driver shaft profile for your fast transition, smooth tempo and mid release golf swing, and watch their eyes glaze over. Most of them have never assembled a golf club in their lives, think shafts are either stiff, regular or senior and yet they are certified. Knowledge is the key.

What do you expect from these people??? For most it is only a part time job or a transition job. I view pretty much GT employees the same way I see Sports Experts,Canadian Tire etc. employees. I may run into a knowledgeable one every now and then but I don't expect it. Can you just imagine the cost of training these people to let's say a PCS level?

[golfin-buddy]

This may not be relevent, but, if current teaching CPGA or other philosophies are so good, why has the average golfers score only dropped a shot or two in 25 years, with all the technological advances that we have seen regarding equipment, in that same length of time? IMO, it is what is being taught, or perhaps how it is being taught.

There are some good teaching CPGA pros and some poor ones, too. I am sure that the same applies to the other organizations, as well.[/quote]

I agree with you on the some good some poor. Just like in any business. Reason why the Average player has not dropped many shots is the amount of people that have joined this great game in the last 10 years. Remember that before video analysis and research, teaching was based on what the eye could see. Since the TIGER BOOM if you will, there has been almost triple the amount of players world wide. I can guarantee that the amount of people actually taking lessons is probably less then 5%. If this is the case then of course the average hasn't dropped. with triple the people I think that the average considering the amount of players has dropped. We just don't see it because of the massive change in the number of players in the world.

MY 2 cents anyway.

[Golfbum]

This may not be relevent, but, if current teaching CPGA or other philosophies are so good, why has the average golfers score only dropped a shot or two in 25 years, with all the technological advances that we have seen regarding equipment, in that same length of time? IMO, it is what is being taught, or perhaps how it is being taught.

There are some good teaching CPGA pros and some poor ones, too. I am sure that the same applies to the other organizations, as well.

Could it be that most amateurs have never had a lesson from a CPGA? I would tend to think most weekend warriors have never seen a PRO for one lesson.

I for one have golfed 25 years, and had one lesson. The only reason I had one lesson from a CPGA Pro is because my wife bought it for me as a gift. The past 5 years I have floated between a 4-8 index. So it is not like I am a total hack. I just never bothered with lessons.
In the future, I might go ask the PRO something if I am struggling as I will be working part time at a private course that has a PRO.

I golf with 10 guys on a regular basis, and two of them have had lessons. The rest just tee it up! So the only way they are improving is on their own. They are guys who golf for fun, they do not want to spend hours on a range working on a swing change.

I do agree, there are good teachers, there are bad teachers. Just like being in school!

[golfCOACH]

I think the CGTF has been buried in this thread.

[Indio]

I think the CGTF has been buried in this thread.

Coach, I had never heard of the CGTF before and from the information provided in this thread, it soulds like it should be 'buried'.

[BC MIST]

I agree with you on the some good some poor. Just like in any business. Reason why the Average player has not dropped many shots is the amount of people that have joined this great game in the last 10 years. Remember that before video analysis and research, teaching was based on what the eye could see. Since the TIGER BOOM if you will, there has been almost triple the amount of players world wide. I can guarantee that the amount of people actually taking lessons is probably less then 5%. If this is the case then of course the average hasn't dropped. with triple the people I think that the average considering the amount of players has dropped. We just don't see it because of the massive change in the number of players in the world.MY 2 cents anyway.

I forget the source (National Golf Foundation??) but I have read that the number of golfers taking up the game in the United States, is equal to the number who are leaving it. However, while I don't believe that the number of golfers has tripled since Tiger's appearance, his presence has certainly increased participation in certain areas.

Your comment, "Remember that before video analysis and research, teaching was based on what the eye could see," is bang on, and is still the basis of most teaching. Jim Maclean's "X" and "Y" factor concepts are classic examples of the bogus motions we all must perform to play better. Also, it was perceived that because of Jack Nicklaus' huge leg drive, that this was his source of power, versus the compensatory move he had to make to prevent a pull hook.

If you look at a hundred good golf swings, they are "all the same" give or take a few millimetres. Straight left arm, folded right, shoulder turn, weight shift and so on. So why are there a hundred theories about how to swing the club? Eliminating the false perceptions of what to do and replace them with what needs to be done, would make learning a good golf swing so much simpler. And, one does not NEED to be CPGA, CGTF or whatever to do this. One just needs a mind that is open enough to challenge everything that is taught, and to seek out a simpler approach for the sake of the keen students.

Awhile back I taped an episode of Tina Mickelson doing a short game show on TGC. Playing it back I counted 37 different swing thoughts expressed. Just what the average golfer needs.

[Gapwedge]

So why are there a hundred theories about how to swing the club?

Option (1): Because golf has become a business. Because every pro is trying to carve out a unique market niche that differentiates him from the others. Because the majority of a pro's income comes from lessons.

Option (2): Because the multitude of us (insatiably gullable consuming) golfers continue to look for the one 'secret' that will instantly transform our game and take us to the "next level".
________
Toyota motor manufacturing indiana

[BC MIST]

Option (1): Because golf has become a business. Because every pro is trying to carve out a unique market niche that differentiates him from the others. Because the majority of a pro's income comes from lessons.

Option (2): Because the multitude of us (insatiably gullable consuming) golfers continue to look for the one 'secret' that will instantly transform our game and take us to the "next level".

The secret to golf is to buy the latest head/shaft/grip at Golftown.

Your signature expresses the truth, but no-one's listening.

[Kilroy]

Your signature expresses the truth, but no-one's listening.

Not true. Some listen.

[Golftime]

Coach, I had never heard of the CGTF before and from the information provided in this thread, it soulds like it should be 'buried'.

The WGTF and it's affiliates in nineteen countries is growing rapidly in number of members and is gaining a lot of respectability. Prominent members like Bob Toski and Mark Harmon ( yes, Butch is his brother) give it a lot of credibility. There are several levels of certification starting with a weekend program to allow people to get their feet wet and become an affiliate member, somewhat like an apprentice. The four day level II course leads to a Level II affiliate membership. The Level III course is 6 days and includes the playing ability test plus a verbal teaching test. (Let me tell you that it is harder than selling a $500,000 dollar deal to a Corporate VP.)
Level IV certification requires the presentation of a thesis on teaching above and beyond what is learned at Level III, plus at least one year with Level III. It also includes a shot making test to prove that you will be able to show students how to hit a shot.
The WGTF/CGTF is not intended to replace CPGA pros. They perform an invaluable role in the golf industry. I think of them as generalists with a broad knowledge. The WGTF/CGTF is meant to produce teacher specialists to augment the CPGA pro. Together they can provide a full set of services to the public. Think about it, why would you need to know about merchandising, running tournaments, or maintaining optimal inventory levels if you are only going to teach? They are all invaluable but are not required for helping someone new develop a love for the game. If we only had the CPGA option available then one of two things would happen. People with an aptitude for teaching would be eliminated because they could not fulfill the CPGA requirements and the game would be poorer for it. The second option is for uncertified ‘instructors’ to operate with no training of any kind. I would prefer going to someone who at least was willing to put in the effort and time to test themselves before they started to teach.
In the end good teachers will attract students by word of mouth and the poor ones will struggle regardless of how they get their training.

[Indio]

In the end good teachers will attract students by word of mouth and the poor ones will struggle regardless of how they get their training.

So Golftime, are you a CTGF?

[Golftime]

Yes I am a member of the CGTF.

[Indio]

Yes I am a member of the CGTF.

Welll thanks for adding actual facts to make the comparisson of both designations more realistic ans somewhat less one sided

[Gapwedge]

I am a CPGA pro and let me tell you, there is quite a difference between the two.

CGTF guys get their "card" or certification in one weekend. CPGA pros have to go through play ability tests, TCCP (Teaching and Coaching Certification Program)1-5 , each one is usually 20 hours each, Rules of Golf (18 hours), teaching, club repairs, turfgrass and clubfitting seminars (approx 35- 40 hours), a business degree (3 years) etc... all this just to get passed the B class status.(assistant pro)

Would you trust yourself to someone who has well over 100 hours of training or one weekend of maybe 15 hours? The answer seems pretty simple.

Actually, this is not a fair comparison. Correct me if I am wrong, but a CPGA 'apprentice' can provide golf instruction once they have passed the Playing Ability Test (PAT) and completed two workshops on instruction. That's it. The requirements you indicate above are to achieve Class A status (less the final exam). To be accurate, you need to compare this to the Level IV (Master's) CGTF.

Even more concerning, the CPGA PAT is 2 rounds with a score of within (2 x rating +15) OR within the lower 30% of the field (of 10 or more people). The third best score could be an 8 hdcp and still pass!

The big difference is the CGTF does not require applicants to be a minion in the golf industry for a season before attempting the PAT. And just to be accurate - the CPGA education requirement is for a 3 yr community college diploma (as different from a degree as you presume a CPGA is from a CGTF).

Don't get me wrong - I am not a CPGA-basher (some of my best friends are CPGAs). I just don't like seeing incorrect arguments being presented.

For more info on CPGA: http://www.cpga.com/en/Membership/Be...er/default.htm
For more info on CGTF: http://www.cgtf.com/
________
Yamaha xj900

[golfin-buddy]

If you look at a hundred good golf swings, they are "all the same" give or take a few millimetres. Straight left arm, folded right, shoulder turn, weight shift and so on. So why are there a hundred theories about how to swing the club? Eliminating the false perceptions of what to do and replace them with what needs to be done, would make learning a good golf swing so much simpler. And, one does not NEED to be CPGA, CGTF or whatever to do this. One just needs a mind that is open enough to challenge everything that is taught, and to seek out a simpler approach for the sake of the keen students.

Awhile back I taped an episode of Tina Mickelson doing a short game show on TGC. Playing it back I counted 37 different swing thoughts expressed. Just what the average golfer needs.

I agree with you BC. Unfortunately, some of the "major" or big ego teachers believe they have to change certain aspects of the swing to make their mark on the industry, most times it becomes the latest swing fad, sometimes it is credible. 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. That's why the golf channel offers 5-6 hours daily in training aids and videos to "help" the golfer achieve a better motion. The sad part of it is; it is a business.

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.

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. Now, the unfortunate thing about a simple swing is that there are many different moving parts in the body that require to be in certain "positions" to achieve this one plane motion. IE: If the back leg moves up and down on the backswing to transition, then the low point of the arc changes, which creates an entire chain reaction of fixes that are required on the downward motion to make proper contact.

And as for Tina Mickelson... some people just like to hear themselves speak! Just kidding. It wouldn't be much of a 1/2 hour show if she only talked for 5 minutes and then we would watch the player chunk shot after shot. The problem here is that she could not communicate her concept (idea) to the student. Doesn't mean she's a bad teacher, just means that this student could not relate her words into action. That can be the most difficult thing to do in teaching. Some people get it right away, some you have to explain 50 different ways on how to achieve the same thing! C'est-la-vie!

Good thread by the way

[Kilroy]

Good point. I have seen several teachers. Some are very clear, others speak some lingo that I just can't relate to.

[golfin-buddy]

[quote=Gapwedge;159694]

1 -- "Actually, this is not a fair comparison. Correct me if I am wrong, but a CPGA
'apprentice' can provide golf instruction once they have passed the Playing
Ability Test (PAT) and completed two workshops on instruction. That's it. The
requirements you indicate above are to achieve Class A status. To be accurate,
you need to compare this to the Level IV (Master's) CGTF."

my original statement...

CGTF guys get their "card" or certification in one weekend. CPGA pros have to go through play ability tests, TCCP (Teaching and Coaching Certification Program)1-5 , each one is usually 20 hours each, Rules of Golf (18 hours), teaching, club repairs, turfgrass and clubfitting seminars (approx 35- 40 hours), a business degree (3 years) etc... all this just to get passed the B class status.(assistant pro).

what you said above is right about the PAT and TCCP 1-2 (20+ hours) for teaching
I figured they would understand when I wrote "all this just to get passed the B class status.(assistant pro)." My bad, should have been clearer.

2 -- "Even more concerning, the CPGA PAT is 2 rounds with a score of within (2 x rating +15) OR within the lower 30% of the field (of 10 or more people). The third best score could be an 8 hdcp and still pass! "

Let me be the first to tell you that the 30% mark very rarely happens and that the scores are usually pretty good. What most people don't understand is the stress of playing this qualifier. If you think that an 8 hdcp can pass this, I can tell you that I have seen guys who are plus hdcp shoot well over 80 under that pressure. People who have not experienced it cannot understand it. The reason why I think that the scoring level is not even par or something like that is that there would be some fantastic teachers, business men(women) and personality's would miss out because they are not great players. (see my last post)

3-- "The big difference is the CGTF does not require applicants to be a minion in the golf industry for a season before attempting the PAT.

I don't know what your idea of a minion is exactly but I don't believe that earning your stripes and paying your dues is being a minion. I honestly think that the first year of candidacy is to give the guys who think that being a CPGA pro is working 30-40 hours a week, playing 5-7 rounds a week, getting free golf and equipment and living the "life" is the business that we are in. I have had the experience of meeting some individuals like this who unfortunately think inwards for themselves. These people did not make it in this business. Because that is not the position of the CPGA. We work extremely hard, (avg Cpga pro works 60-90 hours a week and only gets paid a set salary) to make the everyday golfer, whether a 0 or a 30 hdcp, the most important aspect of our business. This "minion phase" if you will, is to help phase out all the people who want to play golf all the time and take advantage of their cards as free membersips to any golf course in the world.

4-- "And just to be accurate - the CPGA education requirement is for a 3 yr community college diploma (as different from a degree as you presume a CPGA is from a CGTF)."

My mistake, it is a diploma not a degree. I honestly was thinking they are the same thing when I wrote the later.

5 -- "Don't get me wrong - I am not a CPGA-basher (some of my best friends are CPGAs). I just don't like seeing incorrect arguments being presented."

Just to know, have you ever tried either CGTF or CPGA. I just want to know if this is coming from personal experience. I am not saying that you are either right or wrong, but that you are entitled to your opinion. I was just wondering is it was based on experience or not. I have nothing against the CGTF, I just believe that the CPGA is better. My opinion.

P.S. (this is not an attack nor should it be perceived as an attack)

[Gapwedge]

Just to know, have you ever tried either CGTF or CPGA. I just want to know if this is coming from personal experience.

Excellent question - the proof is in the pudding.

I am neither and I have received instruction from both. In general, I find that CPGAs tend to have a better grasp of the swing. I just get rather tired of the ego that, for some, comes along with it.
________
MARIJUANA PICTURES

[Golftime]

Wow. I never thought that a simple poll would cause this much discussion. I just wanted to find out how well known the CGTF is.
However I have picked up some very good insights into how to become a better teacher. One fear that all instructors have is that they are not percieved as an expert. Using lots of lingo is an easy trap to fall into when trying to impress students. Another trap is to try and do too much in a single lesson. Both of these faults have been mentioned throughout this thread. I will try and keep it simple and to try and match my teaching method to the primary learning mode of the student.
Thanks to everybody for the feedback.
It seems like a good time to drop the comparison between the two groups. I would like to open a new thread devouted to tips to help instructors get better. If this already exists in the forum please let me know.

[BC MIST]

Not true. Some listen.

You are correct and perhaps more do on this forum than on others. However, the road blocks to better play still remain almost impenetrable.

[Gapwedge]

I don't know what your idea of a minion is exactly but I don't believe that earning your stripes and paying your dues is being a minion.

This "minion phase" if you will, is to help phase out all the people who want to play golf all the time and take advantage of their cards as free membersips to any golf course in the world.

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