Surely, all these things hinge around having a valid and nett positive methodology.
Irrespective of the tutor.
It has been mentioned, but the emphasis is so often on the tutor, the abilities of the student to learn usually are overlooked.
You can have a good teacher or a bad teacher.
You can have a good student or a bad student.
Combos:
Bad tutor / bad student = the perfect storm for bitching from both sides.
Bad tutor / good student = with the best of intentions, this is doomed, unless the student is gifted, mature, and persistent. (and eventually finds a good tutor)
Good tutor / bad student = the sort of student who expects too much, and really wants it all on a plate. And complains when he doesnt get it. And because the student is at fault, never will.
Good tutor / good student = pretty rare.
Even this doesnt address the aspect of realistic expectations.
There have been the usual stuff about Schumacher, Tiger Woods, etc.
Get real!!
EVEN IF Tiger Woods became a mentor, and showed you his "statements", ie, trophy hauls, bank balance, etc, you STILL wont get anywhere near his expertise or returns. Nor Schumachers.
Reality is, the best you can expect is become professional, and earn an income from it.
If you want to get into F1 racing, Schuie can get teach you to drive well enough to get a job as a test driver, or maybe a starting job in one of the lesser teams, but NOT Ferrari or Redbull, or whatever.
That bit requires genuine, innate, talent, which cannot be taught.
If I recall, education comes from the latin "educare", to bring out, to tease out.
You need to have some spark of intelligence or talent which needs to be brought out in the first place.
EDIT: to avoid boring you further, I wont address the combos of good system/bad system, coupled with good tutor / bad tutor. You need a good system with a good tutor.
A good system with a bad tutor is doomed.
A bad system with a good tutor is pretty scammy.
A bad system with a bad tutor is just LULZ.