When it comes to studying the golf swing and thinking out of the box, two people’s names consistently come to mind in the instruction industry: Dana Dahlquist and Brian Manzella.  As long-time friends and colleagues of mine, they have continued to amaze me with their quest for knowledge and ability to understand the most complex concepts of the golf swing. Although both are at the top tier of the instruction industry, they chase to become better instructors, and that does not go unappreciated by me and their students.

I encourage you to check out the YouTube channels of Dana Dahlquist here, and Brian Manzella here; I have zero doubt in my mind that after watching just a few videos from each you’ll learn something new and it will benefit your golf game.

Recently, I asked them both a series of questions. Please enjoy the insights of two of the smartest brains in our sport.

Tom Stickney: What made you want to dive deeper into the area of golf instruction?

Brian Manzella: I wanted to be a Tour player, and in my hometown of New Orleans, there wasn’t any teacher who could really help me answer the questions I needed answered. So, I went on my own and read everything I could find.

I learned enough to become a D1 college player. While at Southeastern Louisiana University, I qualified for every tournament and won a team match-play event and didn’t get the scholarship I thought I had earned. So at the end of that semester, I let a couple of the country club boys on the team “teach” me. I used to aim right, come over it and hook it. After listening to their advice I couldn’t break 85 for two weeks. I told my dad I was really going to study the swing, because nobody knew “anything.”

So I upped my study, improved a bunch, got a great scholarship offer to play at the University of New Orleans and played there for 3 years. One day in a qualifying round on a windy day on a tough track with OB everywhere, I doubled my last hole to shoot 72. I was low by three strokes, but I played just about as well as I could. Shortly after that Tom Kite shot 62 or 63 somewhere on Tour. I thought I was better athlete than he was, so the difference had to be technique. So I doubled up my study again, this time trying to figure out not just what I needed to do, but why Kite and others like him were so good.

It helped my game a little, but what it did do was inadvertently make me into a teacher. My ability to help people hit it better was soon discovered, and here I am.

Dana Dahlquist: What made me dive deeper into the area of golf instruction, as it pertains to technology and education, is that I thought there were missing links … not only in what was being measured, but also the terminology was too broad and not specific enough to communicate it clearly to all players.

TS: Why do we need more detailed information?

BM: Let’s say the “Man upstairs” came down and gave ALL instructors the answers to how the golf swing works. Then, the best teacher competition would be strictly about who could get others to do it better. And even bad communicators would give better lessons.

Homer Kelley had a great idea with The Golfing Machine, and he did the golf instruction industry a great service with his attempt at explaining the swing and ball flight. He got some things correct and a bunch of stuff wrong, but he moved the bar a mile. Now folks like Steven Nesbit and Michael Jacobs are giving golf teachers the ability to do their own research to move the bar way further. And that is exactly what Michael Jacobs and I are doing. That improved information has made me so much better at what I do.

DD: Golf instruction as a whole has been mainly looked at as psuedo black magic. Ironically, it’s one of the only sports that operates in the instruction area like this. We need more detailed information, because I want to clearly define what the problem area is and cut the time in which it needs to be fixed.

TS: What do you say to people who believe that golf instruction is too complex and needs to be simpler?

BM: I think folks look at an internet debate about something like laying the club down — a current hot topic — and think, “Wow, I sure hope these guys don’t talk at this level of complexity during a lesson.” For the most part, teachers don’t, but there are some lessons that the student can handle high-level information.

I think the level of scientific talk scares a lot of pros who don’t know what any of it means, but there is no doubt about it, it is helping. There are more good teachers now than there were when I started 35 years ago.

The student only needs what the student needs. A great lesson should be able to be given without saying a word. How complex is that?

DD: I think the perception that things are complicated is actually falling to the wayside as concepts such as pressure traces and face-to-path relationships become much more clear and easy to understand. It has become a lot easier to diagnose and relay messages to a greater amount of people. 

TS: What is the biggest issue you have with the “popular” golf instruction today?

BM: For me, it’s a tie between too much focus on the ground — which to me takes focus away from the club and basic body movements — and the over emphasis on handle-dragging for the sake of the look of lag and forward lean at impact.

Dishonorable mention for not enough live instruction with real golfers at seminars. Like I have said forever, If I go to a sheetrock convention, I want to see some sheets go up and some taping and floating.

DD: I wouldn’t say there aren’t really any issues, but I would say there is room for more healthy debates and discussions about certain topics. I think it’s also important that we respect other instructors’ businesses. I’m pretty sensitive to that because we’re all professionals, and we’re just trying to get people to play more golf and play better golf. 

TS: Do swing models work or is it better to teach everyone in their own way?

BM: Whether anyone admits it or not, every teacher has a “model” or multiple models that they work off of in their head. Danielson asked Mr. Miyagi what to do when trimming a bonsai tee. His answer: “Take away everything that doesn’t look like a tree.” At the end of the day, that’s what a good teacher does.

Now, the “tree” in a great teacher’s mind’s eye is the student in front of them, which may be based on another swing somewhere, but it’s still one of a kind. To me, the most fun when teaching is creating or nurturing custom swings that look like nobody else’s and work great.

DD: I think swing models give you a starting point, but not an entire template. I’m a teacher who likes to use comparisons to other players, and rarely is something I teach completely made up that another player hasn’t already done. For example, no one should ever use Jim Furyk or Lee Trevino as swing templates, but they do perform movements in their swings that could be useful for certain types of golfers or swing issues.

TS: Can you be an effective teacher without technology?

BM: Sure. Make no mistake about it; 20 years from now there will still be someone standing behind a golfer with no camera or other device offering suggestions to the player. And some folks will be really good at that. But tools can help save time and that time can sometimes save a golfer’s career.

I teach better with Trackman than without it. And it’s not “Trackman” per se, but a device that tells me detailed information about the club and ball I could not possibly see with precision. Same for GEARS, the best 3D-motion capture product and Jacobs 3D, the premier high-level kinetics and kinematics software. The tool doesn’t make the teacher, the teacher uses the tool for better information on what they are seeing or can’t see. The teacher still must process this information, sometimes in less than 10 or 20 seconds and hopefully say the right something for that golfer at that time.

DD: Of course you can be an effective teacher without technology. There are plenty examples of teachers out there who do so. That being said, if we’re going to talk about angle of attack or face-to-path numbers, that is not possible without equipment to measure it. I would say that in today’s age, it’s important that if you’re going to be a teacher you have at least some basic understanding of technical information. That is our responsibility as instructors. 

TS: Many detractors say Trackman has ruined golf instruction and players are now more focused on making golf swings and not playing golf. How do you feel about that statement?

BM: If Trackman was $500, GEARS was $500 and Jacobs 3D was as available as Photoshop, you’d greatly reduce the negative comments about those systems. Also, a bad teacher can ruin a student without even using a camera. As far as “players being more focused on making swings and not playing golf,” I feel that tournament players as a group are better than ever and the top players can make a swing and still “play golf.”

Years ago I was playing with David Toms and he was watching me “play golf” all around the course. Right pin in front? High cut. Left pin in back into a wind? Punch draw. Sure I pulled a few of them off, but the score wasn’t pretty.

“Why don’t you just play a normal shot?” he asked.

My best rounds of golf were all during periods of time where I had a full swing thought or two and I played the same damn shot all around the course. Swings hit shots. A 20-handicapper can “visualize” all they want, but they are shooting 110 at Oakmont no matter what that way.

DD: I understand what they’re saying. I always like to look at things from both sides of an argument.

The first thing to understand is that when we were young, we learned how to learn what to do and how to do it at a very young age. It’s important to understand the motor learning concept and the practice habits that go into developing into a golfer. I think that might be the No. 1 thing that is not being stated as it pertains to an argument about Trackman or other measuring devices. That’s why it’s important to compartmentalize and understand all facets of the game. We could break golf instruction into course management, we can break it into technique, we can place importance on a lot of different things. But what we do need to understand is that measuring what’s going on can be a positive experience if we understand balance between everything.

TS: If you could tell the average golfer one thing, what would it be?

BM: There is hope. There is always an answer to why. And there is always someone who can help you answer it and fix it. Oh, and I am pretty good at the helping!

DD: I give a lot of lessons to amateur golfers and I think the one thing they need to understand is how to hit it solid first. That is the No. 1 thing that brings them back to playing golf.

TS: How do you manage player expectations on the lesson tee?  

BM: You’d better be able to get them to at least hit a couple of good shots doing what may take them a long time to do regularly. After they see that it’s possible, you have a chance at them taking the time and giving you the chance to help them do it.

DD: This is a very fun question. Managing expectations is probably one of the most difficult facets of learning the game of golf. We need to understand that “golf course” is a difficult game to learn and time to learn it is always too short. But it is important for a coach to lay out a game plan for the student so that he or she can become better. Specifically on the lesson tee, however, 99 percent of my lessons pertain to the full swing. The “golf course” is a much more complex game to learn, and it’s important for students to understand that.

TS: What do you do with the player who has no coordination and has come “over the top” for the last 20 years. Can you actually stop him from doing this once and for all, or is he doomed to do this forever?

BM: I would have no problem if that is all I taught a couple days a week. Everyone comes over the top, or flips it, or backs their hips up. They do that for a reason, though; they hit it better sometimes because they do it.

The trick is to take the reward away and replace it with a different feedback loop that moves the process toward the desired motion and ball fight. And I am really good at the that. If I wasn’t, I’d have quit 20 years ago.

Specifically for that over-the-topper, I’d get him a better left-hand grip, flatten and add positive gamma (shaft twist away from the ball), and get them to back into it a bit and do the “one last point.”

Related: Check out this forum thread to understand a bit more of what Manzella is talking about.

DD: Nobody’s stuck doing anything forever if they have enough understanding and work ethic to make a change. I come from a belief that everything happens for a reason. And as long as the player understands what the reason is, or as I like to call it, “understanding of why,” then they can actually change.

TS: Who do you turn to for questions about the golf swing?

BM: Steven Nesbit, Michael Jacobs and two other scientists on our team are the only folks I’d ask a technical question to. But to be honest, I like to figure it out myself. And 99 percent of the time, I do.

DD: I like to listen and read from a lot of teachers on a lot of different subjects. I enjoy a lot of the biomechanics teachers and researchers just as much as the motor learning teachers. I also enjoy reading and talking with guys who have been in the industry for longer than I have.

I think people who are doing a lot of lessons are good ones to talk to as well, because they’re actually in the trenches. Most of these teachers are not the ones teaching Tour players, because when teaching Tour players you’re not actually changing mechanical issues like you would with an amateur player.

TS: Thank you for your time, guys!

Your Reaction?
  • 91
  • LEGIT7
  • WOW4
  • LOL2
  • IDHT1
  • FLOP2
  • OB1
  • SHANK21

23 COMMENTS

Not seeing your comment? Read our rules and regulations. Click "Report comment" to alert GolfWRX moderators to offensive or inappropriate comments.
    • To Dave R in the upper forum: — I don’t “play”…. I perform …. I swing automatically and within myself …. I don’t coach others and stay silent as they struggle on the course …. I only share my knowledge on fine forums like GolfWRX (even though it is mostly filled with vacuous gearheads) …. and I like the controversial and informative instruction articles.
      Many thanks to you fine folks who bring us this GolfWRX open forum.

  1. The reason why golf instruction has failed is something I discovered in my own search: They are trying to teach a GENERIC swing whereas we all dont have the same GENERIC build, its really that simply. We have different levels of Strength, flexibility with different height and length of arms and legs, size of chest, waist etc etc, the list goes on. Its really that simple. Trying to teach a swing to someone who has no flexibility is different from teaching someone who does. When I learned this subtle but IMPORTANT issue and started tailoring my swing to fit ME, I went from averaging in the mid 80s to breaking 80 every time I stepped on the course. Also it felt free like I wasnt fighting my body to create a swing. Im so surprised this is not taken into consideration more. Remember its all about getting to the proper impact position, how we get there may differ.

    • WRONG.
      They purposefully keep you confused so that you keep going back for more lessons. After all, that’s how they make a living. If each person only took one lesson each, the teacher has to keep scrambling to find new ones and that’s a lot of work they don’t want to keep doing

      • Bingo!

        A person is either going to be athletic enough to hit a golf ball or he is not. To play a person on and on and on who just does not have a gift for swinging a club. Is just cruel.

        It’s not that hard people! Just hit the ball and go after it… hit it again.

        The only real place that most people can improve on is 30 yards and in. And that doesn’t take as much instruction as it does practice. Just do it.

    • dapadre — one of the very best golf swing instruction book that I have found is:
      The LAWs of the Golf Swing – Body Type Your Golf Swing and Master Your Game — Adams, Tomasi, Suttie
      ——-
      The authors differentiated the body types — endomorphic, mesomorphic, ectomorphic — and the three distinct generic swing styles.
      LAW is the acronym for Length, Arc and Width swing styles, but there are mixed body types and dominant swing styles, and the authors address those differences.
      Adams is a PGA Teaching Professional.
      Tomasi has a Ph.D. in Education and is a PGA Professional
      Suttie has a Ph.D. in Biomechanics
      All of them are highly qualified to define the golf swing for different body types. Theirs is the only book that attempts to link golf swing styles to body types… and I cherish my copy of the book. Search it out and I’m sure it will answer your comments on the golf swing.

  2. Oh, I understand TGM for the scientific nonsense that non-engineer Homer Kelly has put into a yellow book that has an error on every page according to Drs. Zick and Grober who analyzed the mess. Homer’s golfswing model is biomechanically wrong and for anybody to espouse his rubbish is equally wrong. Yes, your beloved golf teachers and ex-tour players who claim TGM is the final scientific word are perpetrating a fraud on gullible golfers. TGM IS A COMPLETE SCAM BECAUSE IT’S SCIENTIFICALLY WRONG WRONG WRONG… and that’s why legitimate researchers of the golfswing will never never never cite it as a reference. Homer was fraud and obtained his ‘engineering’ analogies in the Boeing engineering department who told him the golfswing is similar to the hydraulic system on Boeing jets …. and it’s so obvious to anybody with a formal engineering education. TGM R.I.P. !!!
    As to your second point about golfers demanding a quick fix and willing to pay for a ‘lesson’, you will find enough unprofessional PGA accredited teachers who will take the money and run. If you told these gullible golfers the truth about their golfswing and decrepit body, you would starve as a golf teacher. What to do? Go along to get along? Thieves have no regrets taking money from the gullible. Golf is not athletic because the participants are not athletic… sad truth… and that’s why the OEMs prosper scamming the hopeless.

  3. All that is really required to play good golf is to execute properly a relatively small number of true fundamental movements. Ben Hogan. Five Lessons The Modern Fundamentals of Golf.

    If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough. Albert Einstein.

    Yep these two guys have a massive amount of learning to do before they can help anyone…….

    Steve Wozeniak PGA

    • Steve, I believe Hogan described his own swing in the Five Lessons… and I would classify his body type as a “W” or Width player according to LAWs of the Golf Swing – Adams, Suttie, Tomassi. His swing advice is only good for Width players and therefore is not a book for fundamental movements for everybody’s swing. Wouldn’t you agree?
      Yes, Einstein was correct but in order to come up with a simple scientific solution you must be able to calculate or use number solutions to validate your simplified theory. For example, Homer Kelly in his TGM spews a lot of verbal nonsense and his ‘science’ is all wrong and that is obvious to a legitimate scientist/engineer who understands the basic science of Newtonian physics, which Homer espouses incorrectly. If your ‘science’ is wrong everything you say is nonsense. TGM is scientific nonsense. Now we have real scientists analyzing the golfswing and are producing results based on valid measurements and back calculations.
      Five Lessons is an anecdotal story of Hogan’s swing and well written by Warren Wind, a golf journalist who likely added in his own knowledge of the golfswing to make the book comprehensive. Hogan was not a literary man and was somewhat withdrawn on the golf course. In my view, Wind pulled together Hogan’s thoughts and made Five Lessons acceptable. However, Hogan respected science and did say in the book that his swing analysis would likely be changed with time and more scientific study. He was right, and he didn’t believe his book was the gospel truth as some would make it out to be. Sorry….

  4. Pretty ironic that you chose two instructors who have made golfing instruction infinitely more complex. Brian Manzella, who changes theories and models more than most change underwear, first fixing people’s slice by making them hook it, then fixing their hook by taking them the opposite way, all in an attempt to sell videos.

    Then you’ve got Dana Dahlquist, whose swing models are as solid as the changing winds. He was hard core stack and tilt and now he sells a more complicated, complicated George Gankas move, sans the jovial personality.

    Go to one of these instructors if you want to get mired in micro moves. Or just wait a few months/years. They’ll be on to the next fad swing.

    • How true! All these “swing gurus” are failed tour players and confirm the dictum: “He who can, does. He who cannot, teaches.”
      If the equipment OEMs can flog new and improved weapons semi-annually why can’t these teachers jump on the bandwagon with new swing-du-jour theories to keep the gullible golfers in a state of neurotic uncertainty …. and sell the sizzle, not the swing because you want to keep the suckers coming back again and again ad infinitum …. sooo obvious!

  5. “…Homer Kelley had a great idea with The Golfing Machine, and he did the golf instruction industry a great service with his attempt at explaining the swing and ball flight. He got some things correct and a bunch of stuff wrong, but he moved the bar a mile.”
    ———–
    TGM is total rubbish and you know it. You can’t even explain ‘scientific’ Chapter 2 even though you are a GSED and anybody with a doctorate ‘degree’ must be able to explain everything. TGM is just another scam in the gullible golf world and golf instructors only use it to dazzle and scam their students.
    There is nothing ‘scientific’ about TGM because it’s scientifically wrong, flawed, stupid, and not golf worthy.
    The only reason TGM survives is the odious promotion by nefarious teachers exploiting their gullible students… plain & simple.

  6. Golf is absolutely a psychological game. As a duffer at golf (ex pro-elite competitor in another sport) I often tie myself in knots over technical stuff when playing golf poorly, whereas the good rounds are when it’s a zen thing at address, and the fundamentals like swing, course management and shot repertoire, are effectively in the background. Coaches like Nilsson and Marriott are great for the game because they teach an overall approach.

  7. We are entering the scientific cyborg age of mind over body in an attempt to fix the golfswing.
    We are being hooked up to measuring gadgets to analyze how our disorganized body attempts to function, and fails.
    We search for that elusive golfswing “feel” to satisfy our feeelings. We want an instant scientific solution without paying the price of practice… lots of practice. Mind over decrepit body.
    Good golfers seek feel throughout their golfswing as they practice consciously in order to embed swing changes into their unconscious mind.
    Poor golfers buy the latest WITB gear their favorite (winning) pro players play… so they can ‘feeel’ what the pros feel.
    Then there are the golfers who seek the ‘truth’ about the golfswing so they can intelligently liberate themselves from their faulty golfswing. A swing ‘tip’ in magazines, books, internet, forums and the ultimate medicine… golf lessons from prominent Top 100 teachers who teach the pros and will give them the true ‘secrets’ they provide the pros.
    These two celebrity golf teachers will provide them with the best scientific and practical application lessons, but only if they practice diligently and return for followup lessons to gauge your progress. That’s only fair and effective. There is no shortcut… it’s a tough game to control only with your conscious mind if your mind is wanting.

    • Would have to agree, if you have the time and talent you can play a game similar to what is seen on T.V. but what makes golf great is you can also play a game that is nothing like what is on T.V. and still have a very good day…so what if you shoot a par round from 6,000 yards and the guy on T.V. shoots a 65 form 7,300 yards you both feel great about it….

      • Yes… and I admire the aging golfer who can play consistent bogey golf, in the high 80s or low 90s, because they know their limitations and wisely manage their swing and the golf course. Younger men who strive to compete and win without putting in the requisite practice time together with competent and qualified instruction, like those in this fine article, are simply masturbating all over the golf course searching for balls and creating huge divots thinking that their youthful power will overcome that little 1.68 golf ball.
        If you play par golf on a 6,000yd course you are in the top 0.25% of all golfers worldwide … and you likely don’t need the advice proffered on this fine forum …. and you don’t buy new clubs annually either.

  8. Have to look at two sides of this question, sure if you have what it takes to play at a high level you need all the best you can get in coaching. If you find you are not gifted or just want to play good enough to stop buying the drinks every round then a more band-aid quick fix type swing could be a better route…If you can find someone who can show you how to take the club back and bring it back on the ball square and keep the ball in front of you with a reasonably constant distance the game can be as fun as you want it to be, just fine tune the putting and your a low 20 to 15 handicap for ever. Years ago there was a quick fix lesson called the Heard Super Swing, sold by Pro Jerry Heard…it was the basic take it back square bring it through square swing that worked very well and showing several of my over 100 shooting friends have put them in the 80’s and enjoying golf for most 20 years now. (did not need the over strong hand placement he sold either).

    • “…a more band-aid quick fix type swing..” ….. no such thing and if you want to believe such a thing you are “gullible” per Harvey Penick’s Little Red Book, page 74.
      Any golf instructor who promises you a quick fix ask him if it will last long enough to take to the golf course on the weekend…. and if you have to consciously think about your quick fix you will destabilize some other part of your golfswing that you have coming out from your unconscious mind.
      You cannot overlay a conscious quick fix tip into the rest of your automatic unconscious neuro-muscular golf swing pattern. Can’t be done …. believe it …!

      • Your comments earlier about The Golfing Machine have some validity…yes, it’s well over the top, but whether you want to admit it or not, some very technical people think like that and understand that approach to the golf swing. Just because you don’t understand it doesn’t make it flawed. However, completely dismissing the “quick fix” as a fallacy shows a lack of knowledge of what goes on at the typical driving range. By and large, it’s the golfer that’s asking for the quick fix…”got a tournament this weekend but can’t get off the tee”…”leaving next Friday for a golf vacation and my short game is in the tank”…etc, etc, etc. From 20+ years trying to help those golfers, I can tell you that offering a quick fix or helping someone who I know for a fact won’t actually practice what we worked on is the vast majority of what the average instructor faces day in and day out. Will that fix work over the long haul? Maybe, maybe not…depends what the problem was to begin with. Bigger point is it will probably get the golfer through that tournament or trip…which is what he/she is after all along.

        • I inadvertently posted my response to you above in the topic thread, thus:
          Oh, I understand TGM for the scientific nonsense that non-engineer Homer Kelly has put into a yellow book that has an error on every page… Sorry….

LEAVE A REPLY