So, the USGA and the R&A have decided to study all aspects concerning the effect of golf ball distance in golf. It includes amateur and professional golfers worldwide, golf course owners and operators, golf equipment manufacturers, golf course architects and golf course superintendents.
It wasn’t that long ago that they concluded that distance was not an issue. I wonder what changed. I have no idea how much they are going to spend on this research, but in the end, I’ll bet it comes down to something simple. In fact, I can save them a lot of time and effort. The only issues concerning distance is the added cost of maintenance due to lengthening and toughening up golf courses, plus the hour or so longer it takes to play them. Think about it. Fifty years ago, I paid an average of $20 to play the local municipal courses I grew up around. Today in Florida, I pay an average of about $30. Yet, maintenance costs have significantly increased over those same years,
Other than maintenance costs, distance has been extremely lucrative for the other aspects of the game. The professional tours are doing very well. People love the long ball. Average players all want more. As the Geico commercials say, there’s a lot to be said about more. Manufacturers get top dollar for clubs and balls that go farther. Is pulling back really what people are going to want? Doubtful! Here is my bottom line: Roll back the playing surface to a reasonable length and make them easier to maintain. Distance just changes strategy. Instead of laying up, the new norm will be going for it. So what if I can drive a par-four? It is always about who shoots the lowest score. Does it really matter how it is done? The quest for distance has been a staple of golf since its origin. Why stop now?
I was recently asked by a student how often he should take a lesson. I usually let the student take the lead on this type of conversation to get a feel for where their head is at, and how serious they are about improving their game. I carefully considered the student’s question to provide him with the best possible answer. While I would love for a student to take a lesson every week so that I could carefully watch and help them, is that what is right for the student?
I told this particular student that I would like him to practice at least twice between lessons. There is a “method to my madness.” It gives a student time to work on the recommended adjustments and comprehend any positives or negatives from the previous lesson. Maybe we are working on containing a good spine angle, and after a couple of practice rounds they feel like they can’t get through the ball.
Or maybe we have been working on a certain shot shape and they get it down, ready to move onto the next.
Giving a student a chance to work on drills outside of a paid lesson is a more efficient and effective use of your time and theirs. If a student doesn’t practice, it doesn’t matter how many lessons they take. While you want to help them along, they must have time to work on things prior to moving on to the next lesson. Some instructors offer ten-minute lessons that are good for students who don’t practice a lot. This is a “quick look” type of lesson and it serves a purpose.
Having a well-thought out, personalized game plan with your students shows them that you care about their progress as a player. It also helps you manage your schedule more efficiently.