[hue]

Over the past few years, I have seen a lot of these threads on the net. I always thought it was the teacher's ability to teach the student rather than how they, the teacher swung or how they played that mattered?
Ok, granted it might be more kudos to the teacher if they can really play as well as teach but as it was alluded to before, well known teachers tend to be very busy either teaching, running a shop etc so the time that they can devote to their own games is pretty minimal, there are only so many hours in the day and golf isn't everything.
JMHO.
Alex

I am with you part of the way. For me the teacher must have a real true understanding of stroke patters with the ability to communicate combined with an analytical mind to get to the core of the player they are teaching to be a good teacher. A lot of teachers that can't play don't posses the qualities described so level of play can be an indicator. If the teacher has the knowledge but very poor natural innate physical ability then poor standards of play are excusable and to be expected. vj in shooting 62 can clearly both teach and play and much of his day is taken up teaching. He must be one of the really fortunate ones with an innate natural ability to play golf . Others who are not as gifted can sill reach their potential and this is a better indicator. I take much more notice of guys like vj than the likes of Leadbetter and Scott Cranfield ( who I have seen play when he was practicing a lot ). A lot of the better players I know (Europro Tour players) take lessons from former European Tour player Peter Mitchell because he could both teach and play to a high standard. I have discussed this with several of them and many say that it is difficult to take advice from teachers that have NEVER played to a high standard . I think most of us can relate to this. Pelz vs Stan Utley is a good example of this.